On 03/21/2011 10:13 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
* src/remote/remote_protocol.x: Define wire protocol * daemon/remote.c, src/remote/remote_driver.c: Add new functions for virDomainMigrateSetSpeed API * src/remote/remote_protocol.c, src/remote/remote_protocol.h, daemon/remote_dispatch_args.h, daemon/remote_dispatch_prototypes.h, daemon/remote_dispatch_table.h: Re-generate files --- daemon/remote.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ daemon/remote_dispatch_args.h | 1 + daemon/remote_dispatch_prototypes.h | 8 ++++++++ daemon/remote_dispatch_table.h | 5 +++++ src/remote/remote_driver.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- src/remote/remote_protocol.c | 13 +++++++++++++ src/remote/remote_protocol.h | 10 ++++++++++ src/remote/remote_protocol.x | 9 ++++++++- 8 files changed, 103 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
No change to src/remote_protocol-structs (make check should have caught that, if you have 'dwarves' installed)? Also, that file has a pending unreviewed patch from me that might conflict, depending on who pushes first: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-March/msg00519.html
+++ b/src/remote/remote_protocol.x @@ -1760,6 +1760,12 @@ struct remote_domain_migrate_set_max_downtime_args { unsigned flags; };
+struct remote_domain_migrate_set_max_speed_args { + remote_nonnull_domain dom; + unsigned hyper bandwidth; + unsigned flags; +};
Do we really need 'unsigned long' in patch 1 and 'hyper' here? Given that the argument is provided in units of Mbps, wouldn't 'int' be sufficient? However, this accurately reflects patch 1, so a change here would also require a change in patch 1. ACK with the nits addressed. -- Eric Blake eblake@redhat.com +1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org