On 03/02/2010 05:33 PM, Matthias Bolte wrote:
2010/3/2 David Allan<dallan(a)redhat.com>:
> ---
> src/esx/esx_storage_driver.c | 39 +++------------------------------------
> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/esx/esx_storage_driver.c b/src/esx/esx_storage_driver.c
> index d09831a..84f0339 100644
> --- a/src/esx/esx_storage_driver.c
> +++ b/src/esx/esx_storage_driver.c
> @@ -70,42 +70,9 @@ esxStorageClose(virConnectPtr conn)
>
>
> static virStorageDriver esxStorageDriver = {
> - "ESX", /* name */
> - esxStorageOpen, /* open */
> - esxStorageClose, /* close */
> - NULL, /* numOfPools */
> - NULL, /* listPools */
> - NULL, /* numOfDefinedPools */
> - NULL, /* listDefinedPools */
> - NULL, /* findPoolSources */
> - NULL, /* poolLookupByName */
> - NULL, /* poolLookupByUUID */
> - NULL, /* poolLookupByVolume */
> - NULL, /* poolCreateXML */
> - NULL, /* poolDefineXML */
> - NULL, /* poolBuild */
> - NULL, /* poolUndefine */
> - NULL, /* poolCreate */
> - NULL, /* poolDestroy */
> - NULL, /* poolDelete */
> - NULL, /* poolRefresh */
> - NULL, /* poolGetInfo */
> - NULL, /* poolGetXMLDesc */
> - NULL, /* poolGetAutostart */
> - NULL, /* poolSetAutostart */
> - NULL, /* poolNumOfVolumes */
> - NULL, /* poolListVolumes */
> - NULL, /* volLookupByName */
> - NULL, /* volLookupByKey */
> - NULL, /* volLookupByPath */
> - NULL, /* volCreateXML */
> - NULL, /* volCreateXMLFrom */
> - NULL, /* volDelete */
> - NULL, /* volGetInfo */
> - NULL, /* volGetXMLDesc */
> - NULL, /* volGetPath */
> - NULL, /* poolIsActive */
> - NULL, /* poolIsPersistent */
> + .name = "ESX",
> + .open = esxStorageOpen,
> + .close = esxStorageClose
> };
>
>
> --
> 1.6.5.5
>
There was some discussion on the list about which struct
initialization style to use. The result was to prefer the old style,
one argument was that it provides some form of todo list in the
codebase itself.
I even have a patch laying around that converts the dot-name style to
the old style.
Matthias
Ok, now I remember the thread; I thought it was odd that you had it in
this style. I'll put it back to that style & add the field.
Dave