On 5/13/20 6:05 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
Implementations should decide the necessary permissions based on @role.
Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com>
---
+++ 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 <ebl...@redhat.com>
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
