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