[libvirt] [libvirt-glib] Add getter for GVirConfigDomainOS.arch

[Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)]

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 05:45:31AM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
>> From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak at gnome.org>
>>
>> ---
>>  libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c |    7 +++++++
>>  libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.h |    1 +
>>  libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig.sym         |    1 +
>>  3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c b/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c
>> index 9a1648a..2e4a69a 100644
>> --- a/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c
>> +++ b/libvirt-gconfig/libvirt-gconfig-domain-os.c
>> @@ -275,6 +275,13 @@ GList *gvir_config_domain_os_get_boot_devices(GVirConfigDomainOs *os)
>>      return devices;
>>  }
>>
>> +const char *gvir_config_domain_os_get_arch(GVirConfigDomainOs *os)
>> +{
>
> g_return_val_if_fail(GVIR_CONFIG_IS_DOMAIN_OS(os), NULL);
>
> ACK with this added. Is it fine to return NULL when no arch is specified,
> or would it be better to return something else?

I'm not very sure about returing default values in general since thats
very much a policy decision and we are not giving any clue to the app
that we are making the decision for it. Just saying I'm not sure, not
that I actually have a strong opinion either way.


-- 
Regards,

Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
FSF member#5124