|
From: | Eric Blake |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH v4 34/34] block: Drop @child_class from bdrv_child_perm() |
Date: | Wed, 13 May 2020 16:15:13 -0500 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 |
On 5/13/20 6:05 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
Implementations should decide the necessary permissions based on @role. Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <address@hidden> ---
+++ b/block.c @@ -1947,13 +1947,13 @@ bool bdrv_is_writable(BlockDriverState *bs) }static void bdrv_child_perm(BlockDriverState *bs, BlockDriverState *child_bs,- BdrvChild *c, const BdrvChildClass *child_class, - BdrvChildRole role, BlockReopenQueue *reopen_queue, + BdrvChild *c, BdrvChildRole role, + BlockReopenQueue *reopen_queue, uint64_t parent_perm, uint64_t parent_shared, uint64_t *nperm, uint64_t *nshared) { assert(bs->drv && bs->drv->bdrv_child_perm); - bs->drv->bdrv_child_perm(bs, c, child_class, role, reopen_queue, + bs->drv->bdrv_child_perm(bs, c, role, reopen_queue, parent_perm, parent_shared, nperm, nshared);
Is it worth reflowing this call into two lines rather than three? But that's cosmetic.
Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden> -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |