[libvirt] [PATCH v2 2/5] Wire protocol and dispatcher for virDomainMigrateSetMaxDowntime

[Jiri Denemark]

> > diff --git a/src/remote/remote_protocol.h b/src/remote/remote_protocol.h
> > index f76e6e5..34d49fa 100644
> > --- a/src/remote/remote_protocol.h
> > +++ b/src/remote/remote_protocol.h
> > @@ -4,51 +4,51 @@
> >   */
> >  
> >  #ifndef _RP_H_RPCGEN
> > -# define _RP_H_RPCGEN
> > +#define _RP_H_RPCGEN
> >  
> > -# include <rpc/rpc.h>
> > +#include <rpc/rpc.h>
> 
>  painful because it's generated, if you don't have cppi installed
> make "syntax-check" won't complain, but I'm afraid it will for those
> where this is present. I think the patch is fine, we just need to make
> sure that generated file is not checked for the cppi test,

Actually, it's not really painful. This is probably a result of a massive
reindenting of CPP directives which was mistakenly done for generated files. I
do have cppi installed and it doesn't complain since the syntax check rule
already ignores remote_(driver|protocol)\.h

> > @@ -1703,7 +1710,8 @@ enum remote_procedure {
> >      REMOTE_PROC_DOMAIN_DETACH_DEVICE_FLAGS = 161,
> >      REMOTE_PROC_CPU_BASELINE = 162,
> >      REMOTE_PROC_DOMAIN_GET_JOB_INFO = 163,
> > -    REMOTE_PROC_DOMAIN_ABORT_JOB = 164
> > +    REMOTE_PROC_DOMAIN_ABORT_JOB = 164,
> > +    REMOTE_PROC_DOMAIN_MIGRATE_SET_MAX_DOWNTIME = 165
> >  
> >      /*
> >       * Notice how the entries are grouped in sets of 10 ?
> 
>   note that the patch will probably have to be regenerated once Dave
> Allan new interface is pushed too, as both patches use 165

Sure, I'm aware of those patches. The only question is which patches will be
pushed first :-)

Jirka