On 3/26/20 8:28 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 26.03.2020 um 14:20 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
+++ b/block/file-posix.c
@@ -3513,6 +3513,8 @@ static BlockDriver bdrv_host_device = {
       .bdrv_reopen_prepare = raw_reopen_prepare,
       .bdrv_reopen_commit  = raw_reopen_commit,
       .bdrv_reopen_abort   = raw_reopen_abort,
+    .bdrv_co_create_opts = bdrv_co_create_opts_simple,
+    .create_opts         = &bdrv_create_opts_simple,

I'd drop the leading & for consistency with the rest of this struct

This one isn't a function pointer, so I think the & is necessary.

Ah, right. Visual pattern-matching failed me, since I didn't read the actual types in the .h file.

Hmm - is it possible to write the patch in such a way that .create_opts can be left NULL when .bdrv_co_create_opts is bdrv_co_create_opts_simple?

Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3226
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org

Reply via email to