On 02/23/2018 09:27 AM, Ján Tomko wrote:
Inspired-by: Laine Stump <laine@laine.org>
How can I *not* at least look at the patches when you call me out like this!
Day-of-the-week: Friday <6>
Ján Tomko (16): vboxDumpSharedFolders: rename non-standard label vboxDumpSharedFolders: remove pointless comment vboxDumpSharedFolders: return a value vboxDumpNetwork: add temp variable for current network vboxDumpNetwork: rename to vboxDumpNetworks vboxDumpNetwork: re-introduce this function vboxDumpNetworks: reduce indentation level vboxDumpNetwork: allocate the network too vboxDumpNetworks: delete pointless comment vboxDumpNetworks: do not allocate def->nets upfront vboxDumpNetwork: use virMacAddrParseHex vboxDumpNetwork: Use a single utf16 variable vboxDumpNetwork: Use a single utf8 temp variable vboxDumpNetwork: use a switch for attachmentType vboxDumpNetwork: use VIR_STEAL_PTR instead of VIR_STRDUP vboxDumpNetwork: use switch for adapterType
src/vbox/vbox_common.c | 243 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------- 1 file changed, 120 insertions(+), 123 deletions(-)
Nice. Where I had whined, you actually took action! :-) I'm unable to test, but I looked through and each patch looks straightforward and sane (there were bits I didn't like (e.g. perpetuating ignore_value() uses), but they were removed in subsequent patches, so all is good. You say that you've actually tested the code, so as long as you've also run make syntax-check and make check: ACK series https://tinyurl.com/y8hxgcg