On Thu, 2019-03-07 at 14:35 -0500, Cole Robinson wrote:
@@ -5164,13 +5164,26 @@ testStorageVolDelete(virStorageVolPtr vol,
static int
testStorageVolumeTypeForPool(int pooltype)
{
- switch (pooltype) {
- case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_DIR:
- case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_FS:
- case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_NETFS:
- return VIR_STORAGE_VOL_FILE;
- default:
- return VIR_STORAGE_VOL_BLOCK;
+ switch ((virStoragePoolType) pooltype) {
+ case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_DIR:
+ case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_FS:
+ case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_NETFS:
+ case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_VSTORAGE:
+ return VIR_STORAGE_VOL_FILE;
+ case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_SHEEPDOG:
+ case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_ISCSI_DIRECT:
+ case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_GLUSTER:
+ case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_RBD:
+ return VIR_STORAGE_VOL_NETWORK;
+ case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_LOGICAL:
+ case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_DISK:
+ case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_MPATH:
+ case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_ISCSI:
+ case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_SCSI:
+ case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_ZFS:
Surely VIR_STORAGE_VOL_BLOCK should be returned here...
+ case VIR_STORAGE_POOL_LAST:
+ default:
+ return VIR_STORAGE_VOL_BLOCK;
}
... and these last two would result in virReportEnumRangeError()
being called?
I won't comment on the actual change since it's out of my area of
expertise, though it looks sane enough from where I'm standing.
--
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization