Re: [libvirt] [RFC PATCH] include: make it easier to probe enum growth

2014-10-07 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 02:06:56PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1147639 is an example of a downstream distro's dilemma - when backporting a feature that is implemented in an ABI-compatible manner (no .so bump was required) but where the feature involves

Re: [libvirt] [RFC PATCH] include: make it easier to probe enum growth

2014-10-07 Thread Eric Blake
On 10/07/2014 03:16 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 02:06:56PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1147639 is an example of a downstream distro's dilemma - when backporting a feature that is implemented in an ABI-compatible manner (no .so

[libvirt] [RFC PATCH] include: make it easier to probe enum growth

2014-10-06 Thread Eric Blake
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1147639 is an example of a downstream distro's dilemma - when backporting a feature that is implemented in an ABI-compatible manner (no .so bump was required) but where the feature involves new bits to be defined in a flags variable, how does one write