On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:10:14 +0800 Wenchao Xia <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. :) Oh, you seem to be right. Sorry for the noise.
