On 03/03/2010 03:06 AM, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:13:17PM -0500, Dave Allan wrote:
On 03/02/2010 05:33 PM, Matthias Bolte wrote:
2010/3/2 David Allan<dallan@redhat.com>:
--- src/esx/esx_storage_driver.c | 39 +++------------------------------------ 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/esx/esx_storage_driver.c b/src/esx/esx_storage_driver.c index d09831a..84f0339 100644 --- a/src/esx/esx_storage_driver.c +++ b/src/esx/esx_storage_driver.c @@ -70,42 +70,9 @@ esxStorageClose(virConnectPtr conn)
static virStorageDriver esxStorageDriver = { - "ESX", /* name */ - esxStorageOpen, /* open */ - esxStorageClose, /* close */ - NULL, /* numOfPools */ - NULL, /* listPools */ - NULL, /* numOfDefinedPools */ - NULL, /* listDefinedPools */ - NULL, /* findPoolSources */ - NULL, /* poolLookupByName */ - NULL, /* poolLookupByUUID */ - NULL, /* poolLookupByVolume */ - NULL, /* poolCreateXML */ - NULL, /* poolDefineXML */ - NULL, /* poolBuild */ - NULL, /* poolUndefine */ - NULL, /* poolCreate */ - NULL, /* poolDestroy */ - NULL, /* poolDelete */ - NULL, /* poolRefresh */ - NULL, /* poolGetInfo */ - NULL, /* poolGetXMLDesc */ - NULL, /* poolGetAutostart */ - NULL, /* poolSetAutostart */ - NULL, /* poolNumOfVolumes */ - NULL, /* poolListVolumes */ - NULL, /* volLookupByName */ - NULL, /* volLookupByKey */ - NULL, /* volLookupByPath */ - NULL, /* volCreateXML */ - NULL, /* volCreateXMLFrom */ - NULL, /* volDelete */ - NULL, /* volGetInfo */ - NULL, /* volGetXMLDesc */ - NULL, /* volGetPath */ - NULL, /* poolIsActive */ - NULL, /* poolIsPersistent */ + .name = "ESX", + .open = esxStorageOpen, + .close = esxStorageClose };
-- 1.6.5.5
There was some discussion on the list about which struct initialization style to use. The result was to prefer the old style, one argument was that it provides some form of todo list in the codebase itself.
I even have a patch laying around that converts the dot-name style to the old style.
Matthias
Ok, now I remember the thread; I thought it was odd that you had it in this style. I'll put it back to that style& add the field.
Yep, the point is that with the old style you can immediately see what entry points from a driver are missing,
thanks,
Daniel
Ok. I prefer the other style, but if that's what we're doing, I'll do it that way. Attached is a replacement patch [not an incremental]. Dave