"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com> wrote: ...
No, they are all correct AFAIK. The *existing* code was buggy using the wrong macros in many places. ... You need to compare with the function context shown in the patch, rather than assume the original code was correct :-)
Yeah, "assuming" can cause trouble ;-) It would help others down the road if there were a note in the ChangeLog that this change set also fixes several bugs. Some might even prefer to put the minimal bug-fix-only change into its own change set. From an N-year maintenance perspective, that's preferable: less risk of it interfering with other changes. Otherwise, the fixes are buried under all the similar-looking-but-syntax-only changes. If you don't mind splitting this patch, I'll be happy to supply the equivalent pair of replacement change sets.