hw/block/xen-block.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Patch created mechanically by rerunning:
$ spatch --sp-file scripts/coccinelle/qobject.cocci \
--macro-file scripts/cocci-macro-file.h \
--dir hw/block --in-place
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
---
hw/block/xen-block.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/block/xen-block.c b/hw/block/xen-block.c
index 70fc2455e8..9c722b9b95 100644
--- a/hw/block/xen-block.c
+++ b/hw/block/xen-block.c
@@ -771,7 +771,7 @@ static XenBlockDrive *xen_block_drive_create(const char *id,
QDict *cache_qdict = qdict_new();
qdict_put_bool(cache_qdict, "direct", true);
- qdict_put_obj(file_layer, "cache", QOBJECT(cache_qdict));
+ qdict_put(file_layer, "cache", cache_qdict);
qdict_put_str(file_layer, "aio", "native");
}
@@ -796,7 +796,7 @@ static XenBlockDrive *xen_block_drive_create(const char *id,
qdict_put_str(driver_layer, "driver", driver);
g_free(driver);
- qdict_put_obj(driver_layer, "file", QOBJECT(file_layer));
+ qdict_put(driver_layer, "file", file_layer);
g_assert(!drive->node_name);
drive->node_name = xen_block_blockdev_add(drive->id, driver_layer,
--
2.17.2
On 3/13/19 12:44 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Patch created mechanically by rerunning: > > $ spatch --sp-file scripts/coccinelle/qobject.cocci \ > --macro-file scripts/cocci-macro-file.h \ > --dir hw/block --in-place > > Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> > --- > hw/block/xen-block.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> Safe for 4.0 softfreeze in my opinion, but also harmless if it slips to 4.1. -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
Am 13.03.2019 um 18:44 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben: > Patch created mechanically by rerunning: > > $ spatch --sp-file scripts/coccinelle/qobject.cocci \ > --macro-file scripts/cocci-macro-file.h \ > --dir hw/block --in-place > > Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> Which tree should this go through? The Xen one? Kevin
Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> writes: > Am 13.03.2019 um 18:44 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben: >> Patch created mechanically by rerunning: >> >> $ spatch --sp-file scripts/coccinelle/qobject.cocci \ >> --macro-file scripts/cocci-macro-file.h \ >> --dir hw/block --in-place >> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> > > Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> Thanks! > Which tree should this go through? The Xen one? Fine with me. I could also include it in a "miscellaneous cleanup" pull request along with other cleanup patches I got in flight.
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 08:04:00PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> writes: > > > Am 13.03.2019 um 18:44 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben: > >> Patch created mechanically by rerunning: > >> > >> $ spatch --sp-file scripts/coccinelle/qobject.cocci \ > >> --macro-file scripts/cocci-macro-file.h \ > >> --dir hw/block --in-place > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> > > > > Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> > > Thanks! > > > Which tree should this go through? The Xen one? > > Fine with me. I could also include it in a "miscellaneous cleanup" pull > request along with other cleanup patches I got in flight. Markus, I don't have any other Xen patches, so could you include this one in your pull request? Thanks, -- Anthony PERARD
Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@citrix.com> writes: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 08:04:00PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> writes: >> >> > Am 13.03.2019 um 18:44 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben: >> >> Patch created mechanically by rerunning: >> >> >> >> $ spatch --sp-file scripts/coccinelle/qobject.cocci \ >> >> --macro-file scripts/cocci-macro-file.h \ >> >> --dir hw/block --in-place >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> >> > >> > Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> >> >> Thanks! >> >> > Which tree should this go through? The Xen one? >> >> Fine with me. I could also include it in a "miscellaneous cleanup" pull >> request along with other cleanup patches I got in flight. > > Markus, I don't have any other Xen patches, so could you include this > one in your pull request? Sure!
> -----Original Message----- > From: Markus Armbruster [mailto:armbru@redhat.com] > Sent: 13 March 2019 17:45 > To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org > Cc: sstabellini@kernel.org; Anthony Perard <anthony.perard@citrix.com>; Paul Durrant > <Paul.Durrant@citrix.com>; xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; qemu-block@nongnu.org > Subject: [PATCH] xen-block: Replace qdict_put_obj() by qdict_put() where appropriate > > Patch created mechanically by rerunning: > > $ spatch --sp-file scripts/coccinelle/qobject.cocci \ > --macro-file scripts/cocci-macro-file.h \ > --dir hw/block --in-place > > Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> Acked-by: Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@citrix.com> > --- > hw/block/xen-block.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/block/xen-block.c b/hw/block/xen-block.c > index 70fc2455e8..9c722b9b95 100644 > --- a/hw/block/xen-block.c > +++ b/hw/block/xen-block.c > @@ -771,7 +771,7 @@ static XenBlockDrive *xen_block_drive_create(const char *id, > QDict *cache_qdict = qdict_new(); > > qdict_put_bool(cache_qdict, "direct", true); > - qdict_put_obj(file_layer, "cache", QOBJECT(cache_qdict)); > + qdict_put(file_layer, "cache", cache_qdict); > > qdict_put_str(file_layer, "aio", "native"); > } > @@ -796,7 +796,7 @@ static XenBlockDrive *xen_block_drive_create(const char *id, > qdict_put_str(driver_layer, "driver", driver); > g_free(driver); > > - qdict_put_obj(driver_layer, "file", QOBJECT(file_layer)); > + qdict_put(driver_layer, "file", file_layer); > > g_assert(!drive->node_name); > drive->node_name = xen_block_blockdev_add(drive->id, driver_layer, > -- > 2.17.2
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.