On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 10:38:41AM +0100, Ján Tomko wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 04:43:06PM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > The controller model is slightly unusual in that the default value is
> > -1, not 0. As a result the default value is not covered by any of the
> > existing enum
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 01:33:23PM -0500, John Ferlan wrote:
>
>
> On 02/15/2018 11:43 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > The controller model is slightly unusual in that the default value is
> > -1, not 0. As a result the default value is not covered by any of the
> > existing enum cases. This
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 04:43:06PM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
The controller model is slightly unusual in that the default value is
-1, not 0. As a result the default value is not covered by any of the
existing enum cases. This in turn means that any switch() statements
that think they
On 02/15/2018 11:43 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> The controller model is slightly unusual in that the default value is
> -1, not 0. As a result the default value is not covered by any of the
> existing enum cases. This in turn means that any switch() statements
> that think they have covered
The controller model is slightly unusual in that the default value is
-1, not 0. As a result the default value is not covered by any of the
existing enum cases. This in turn means that any switch() statements
that think they have covered all cases, will in fact not match the
default value at all.
