[Libvirt-cim] [PATCH 1 of 6] Turns out that the sdc_rasd_prop functions might need to report status or see the passed in reference. This updates the typedef and the memory functions, since those are already in the tree

[Jay Gagnon]

Dan Smith wrote:
> JG> # HG changeset patch
> JG> # User Jay Gagnon <grendel at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> JG> # Date 1194557266 18000
> JG> # Node ID fd6deb234772b44fe549a3513a47115a01e20f7d
> JG> # Parent  bd1b1067d106ecc1546c3b2436a43f59f8eaba15
> JG> Turns out that the sdc_rasd_prop functions might need to report status or see the passed in reference.  This updates the typedef and the memory functions, since those are already in the tree.
>
> This one looks pretty straightforward.  It looks like we could apply
> this one independently if we wanted to, right?  A rather
> self-contained change, considering the size of the rest of the set.
>   
This sets up the new function header for all the callbacks.  I think it
can be applied separately in that it can be applied before the other
ones, but if we are going to put those in then this one will have to be
there.  Did that answer the question?
> JG> +        if (!ret) {
> JG> +                cu_statusf(_BROKER, s, CMPI_RC_ERR_FAILED,
> JG> +                           "Could not copy RASD.");
> JG> +        }
>
> This is a total nit, so forgive my OCD, but I think that everywhere
> else, the style of a cu_statusf() call is:
>
>   cu_statusf(broker, status, <newline>
>              CMPI_RC_ERR_FOO, <newline>
>              "Error message", [opt if short, else newline],
>              [opt]);
>
> Could I convince you to change these? :)
>   
Yea, no prob.

-- 

-Jay