Am 02.09.2021 um 11:37 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben:
> First, this permission never protected a node from being changed, as
> generic child-replacing functions don't check it.
>
> Second, it's a strange thing: it presents a permission of parent node
> to change its child. But
Ping)
03.09.2021 21:47, Eric Blake wrote:
On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 12:37:54PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
First, this permission never protected a node from being changed, as
generic child-replacing functions don't check it.
Second, it's a strange thing: it presents a permission
Ping)
Patch is reviewed.
02.09.2021 12:37, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
First, this permission never protected a node from being changed, as
generic child-replacing functions don't check it.
Second, it's a strange thing: it presents a permission of parent node
to change its child. But
On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 12:37:54PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> First, this permission never protected a node from being changed, as
> generic child-replacing functions don't check it.
>
> Second, it's a strange thing: it presents a permission of parent node
> to change its child.
First, this permission never protected a node from being changed, as
generic child-replacing functions don't check it.
Second, it's a strange thing: it presents a permission of parent node
to change its child. But generally, children are replaced by different
mechanisms, like jobs or qmp
