On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 11:51:21AM +0200, Wim ten Have wrote:
On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 08:49:33 +0200
Martin Kletzander <mkletzan(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 04:31:50PM +0200, Wim ten Have wrote:
> >On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 16:36:58 +0200
> >Martin Kletzander <mkletzan(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >diff --git a/src/conf/cpu_conf.c b/src/conf/cpu_conf.c
> >> >index c21d11d..8d804a1 100644
> >> >--- a/src/conf/cpu_conf.c
> >> >+++ b/src/conf/cpu_conf.c
> >> >@@ -642,7 +642,7 @@ virCPUDefFormatBufFull(virBufferPtr buf,
> >> > if (virCPUDefFormatBuf(&childrenBuf, def, updateCPU) < 0)
> >> > goto cleanup;
> >> >
> >> >- if (virDomainNumaDefCPUFormat(&childrenBuf, numa) < 0)
> >> >+ if (virDomainNumaDefCPUFormatXML(&childrenBuf, numa) < 0)
> >> > goto cleanup;
> >
> >> Changing function names should be separate patch. Why is this
> >> changed anyway?
> >
> >I renamed virDomainNumaDefCPUFormat() to virDomainNumaDefCPUFormatXML()
> >to make it consistent with already existing function names like
> > virDomainNumaDefCPUParseXML()
> >
>
> Then put it in a separate patch.
Sure. Do you advise me to put this patch in same or in a separated set?
Whatever suits you, I usually put clean-ups in the series as first
patches so that it is cleanly prepared for the actual changes. But it's
only a matter of not doing multiple things in one patch in case someone
would be targetting one change in the future (finding a regression,
back-porting it, reverting it). It also reads a bit more nicely.
- Wim.