On 03/07/13 19:10, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 06:34:04PM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
On 03/07/13 17:41, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
The virNetDevSetupControlFull function was protected by a
Part of the sentence missing?
Update the conditionals around all callers to do stricter checks to ensure we always build
Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@redhat.com> --- src/util/virnetdevbridge.c | 14 +++++++------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/util/virnetdevbridge.c b/src/util/virnetdevbridge.c index 3c00be9..9d46cc4 100644 --- a/src/util/virnetdevbridge.c +++ b/src/util/virnetdevbridge.c @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ #define VIR_FROM_THIS VIR_FROM_NONE
SIOCBRADDBR -#ifdef SIOCBRADDBR +#if defined(HAVE_STRUCT_IFREQ) && defined(__linux__)
Doesn't follow the pattern established in the rest of the patch: s/__linux__/SIOCBRADDBR/
No, the use of SIOCBRADDBR was flawed - this function is required even in places where SIOCBRADDBR is not defined. HAVE_STRUCT_IFREQ is the commonality in all callers.
Okay,
static int virNetDevSetupControlFull(const char *ifname, struct ifreq *ifr, int domain,
ACK with the change and commit message fixed.
just fix the commit message then.
Daniel