24 Jun
2011
24 Jun
'11
5:32 p.m.
On 06/24/2011 09:27 AM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
@@ -819,4 +847,5 @@ virSecurityDriver virAppArmorSecurityDriver = { AppArmorRestoreSavedStateLabel,
AppArmorSetImageFDLabel, + AppArmorSetProcessFDLabel, };
Should we do a separate patch to make the security drivers use C99 named initialization, instead of C89 order-based, to match how most other driver callback structures are now set up? -- Eric Blake eblake@redhat.com +1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org