On 01/30/2012 04:08 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 05:28:15PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak@gnome.org>
Add a new function to allow changing of capacity of storage volumes. Plan out several flags, even if not all of them will be implemented up front.
+typedef enum { + VIR_STORAGE_VOL_RESIZE_ALLOCATE = 1 << 0, /* force allocation of new size */ + VIR_STORAGE_VOL_RESIZE_DELTA = 1 << 1, /* size is relative to current */ + VIR_STORAGE_VOL_RESIZE_SHRINK = 1 << 2, /* allow decrease in capacity */ +} virStorageVolResizeFlags; + +int virStorageVolResize (virStorageVolPtr vol, + long long capacity, + unsigned int flags);
Why has this changed from 'unsigned long long' to just 'long long'.
Because of VIR_STORAGE_VOL_RESIZE_DELTA and VIR_STORAGE_VOL_RESIZE_SHRINK. That is, virStorageVolResize(vol, -10 * 1024 * 1024, DELTA|SHRINK) is a valid call to shave off 10 MiB of data.
In virStorageVolInfo we use 'unsigned long long', and you can't ever have a negative capacity, so I don't see why this should be signed.
Remember, off_t is signed, so you can never have a storage volume larger than 2**63 bytes anyways. Using signed capacity is no different than using signed off_t (and if you can show me someone with a storage volume with 2**64 bytes, I will be rather envious). -- Eric Blake eblake@redhat.com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org