于 2013-1-15 19:11, Luiz Capitulino 写道:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:58:34 +0800
Wenchao Xia <[email protected]> wrote:
于 2013-1-15 15:27, Wenchao Xia 写道:
于 2013-1-15 1:08, Luiz Capitulino 写道:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:09:37 +0800
Wenchao Xia <[email protected]> wrote:
Parameter *fmt was not used, so remove it.
Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Wenchao Xia <[email protected]>
---
qemu-img.c | 5 ++---
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/qemu-img.c b/qemu-img.c
index 85d3740..9dab48f 100644
--- a/qemu-img.c
+++ b/qemu-img.c
@@ -1186,8 +1186,7 @@ static void dump_json_image_info(ImageInfo *info)
static void collect_image_info(BlockDriverState *bs,
ImageInfo *info,
- const char *filename,
- const char *fmt)
+ const char *filename)
collect_image_info_list() doc reads:
@fmt: topmost image format (may be NULL to autodetect)
However, right now only fmt=NULL is supported, as collect_image_info()
ignores fmt altogether.
So, if this patch is correct we better update the comment. Otherwise,
we should improve collect_image_info() to actually obey fmt != NULL.
@fmt was ignored in the function and I can't see a reason to have
it while *bs contains the info, will change the comments.
Hi, *fmt was used only in collect_image_info_list() when it tries to
open the image, and it is not useful any more in collect_image_info,
so nothing need change in comments.
This really doesn't answer my comment above. The code comment implies that
fmt may be NULL or non-NULL and they have different behavior.
If you choose to touch fmt (as this patch does) then please, do the
right thing. Otherwise it's better to let it untouched.
I think the "fmt may be NULL or non-NULL" indeed have different
behavior for that later following is called:
bs = bdrv_new_open(filename, fmt, BDRV_O_FLAGS | BDRV_O_NO_BACKING,
false);
but it is not related to collect_image_info(), it is more like a
slip in coding having add *fmt in above funtion. :)
--
Best Regards
Wenchao Xia
