On 03/06/2013 11:07 PM, Wenchao Xia wrote:
This patch is just for making review easier, those two functions will
be modified and renamed later.
Signed-off-by: Wenchao Xia <address@hidden>
---
+
+void bdrv_collect_image_info(BlockDriverState *bs,
+ ImageInfo *info,
+ const char *fmt)
+{
Three arguments here...
+
+void bdrv_collect_snapshots(BlockDriverState *bs , ImageInfo *info);
+void bdrv_collect_image_info(BlockDriverState *bs,
+ ImageInfo *info,
+ const char *filename,
+ const char *fmt);
...but four here...
-static void collect_image_info(BlockDriverState *bs,
- ImageInfo *info,
- const char *filename)
...and moved from three arguments here...
info = g_new0(ImageInfo, 1);
- collect_image_info(bs, info, filename);
- collect_snapshots(bs, info);
+ bdrv_collect_image_info(bs, info, filename, fmt);
...and your call site changes from 3 to 4 arguments.
How did you compile this? Code motion must NOT make any semantic
changes - you should have exactly three arguments, preferably with the
same name, and save the addition of a fourth fmt argument until a later
patch.
Hint - a code motion patch should be easy to inspect with:
$ diff -u <(sed -n 's/^-//p' patch) <(sed -n 's/^\+//p' patch)
It's okay to have differences (such as 'static void collect_image_info'
becoming exported 'void bdrv_collect_image_info', and to see
reindentation to line up to the new function name), but the differences
should be trivially correct, and not a change between number of parameters.