On 07/15/14 00:51, John Ferlan wrote:
Bumping again - I found a related bz in my backlog...
On 05/29/2014 01:15 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 05/29/2014 05:54 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
Use virStrToLong_uip instead of virStrToLong_ui to reject negative
numbers in the helper. None of the callers
On 07/16/2014 03:18 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
So - do we adjust the man page to indicate that using a -1 is OK and
what it would do? Probably similar type action for the changes made
(commit id's 0e2d73051 c62125395)?
Or does a negative really make sense for offset? Sure -1 makes sense
and
On 07/16/2014 08:47 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 07/16/2014 03:18 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
So - do we adjust the man page to indicate that using a -1 is OK and
what it would do? Probably similar type action for the changes made
(commit id's 0e2d73051 c62125395)?
Or does a negative really
Bumping again - I found a related bz in my backlog...
On 05/29/2014 01:15 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 05/29/2014 05:54 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
Use virStrToLong_uip instead of virStrToLong_ui to reject negative
numbers in the helper. None of the callers expects the wraparound
feature for
Use virStrToLong_uip instead of virStrToLong_ui to reject negative
numbers in the helper. None of the callers expects the wraparound
feature for negative numbers.
Also be explicit about the new semantics in the function docs.
---
tools/virsh.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2
On 05/29/2014 05:54 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
Use virStrToLong_uip instead of virStrToLong_ui to reject negative
numbers in the helper. None of the callers expects the wraparound
feature for negative numbers.
I had to audit all callers, and found the following (fortunately the
list is fairly
