From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:47855) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h3J4O-000632-5b for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 07:26:13 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h3Iw4-0003P5-0j for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 07:17:36 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:10:06 +0100 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20190311111006.GD7899@localhost.localdomain> References: <20190305154634.4609-1-ndevos@redhat.com> <20190308131151.GA31583@localhost.localdomain> <20190309094000.GB3535@ndevos-x270> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190309094000.GB3535@ndevos-x270> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [PATCH v2 0/2] block: Gluster 6 compatibility List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Niels de Vos Cc: qemu-block@nongnu.org, integration@gluster.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefano Garzarella Am 09.03.2019 um 10:40 hat Niels de Vos geschrieben: > On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 02:11:51PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > Am 05.03.2019 um 16:46 hat Niels de Vos geschrieben: > > > Gluster 6 is currently available as release candidate. There have b= een a > > > few changes to libgfapi.so that need to be adapted by consuming pro= jects > > > like QEMU. Fedora Rawhide already contains glusterfs-6.0-RC0, and t= his > > > prevents rebuilds of QEMU there (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/168429= 8). > > >=20 > > > The following two changes should be sufficient to consume Gluster 6= once > > > it is released. These have been tested on CentOS-7 with Gluster 5 a= nd > > > Gluster 6 (minimal manual qemu-img tests only). > > >=20 > > > This v2 post contains changes suggested by Daniel P. Berrang=E9 and= Kevin > > > Wolf. Thanks! > >=20 > > Thanks, applied to the block branch. >=20 > Thanks! Stefano Garzarella gave a suggestion for further cleanup. I was > planning to address that (no #ifdef for function arguments) next week > when I'm back from a trip, Is that something you would also like to see= , > or do you prefer the change to stay minimal/small as it is now? I'm > happy to send a followup if you agree that it is cleaner. I don't mind either way. I'm going to send a pull request tomorrow for soft freeze, but if you tell me that I should wait with this one, I can remove it from my queue for now. It's a bug fix, so we can still apply an updated version during the freeze. A follow-up works for me, too, so whatever you prefer. Kevin