Re: [PATCH v4 34/34] block: Drop @child_class from bdrv_child_perm()

[Eric Blake]

On 5/13/20 6:05 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
> Implementations should decide the necessary permissions based on @role.
>
> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <address@hidden>
> ---

> +++ b/block.c
> @@ -1947,13 +1947,13 @@ bool bdrv_is_writable(BlockDriverState *bs)
>   }
>   
>   static void bdrv_child_perm(BlockDriverState *bs, BlockDriverState *child_bs,
> -                            BdrvChild *c, const BdrvChildClass *child_class,
> -                            BdrvChildRole role, BlockReopenQueue *reopen_queue,
> +                            BdrvChild *c, BdrvChildRole role,
> +                            BlockReopenQueue *reopen_queue,
>                               uint64_t parent_perm, uint64_t parent_shared,
>                               uint64_t *nperm, uint64_t *nshared)
>   {
>       assert(bs->drv && bs->drv->bdrv_child_perm);
> -    bs->drv->bdrv_child_perm(bs, c, child_class, role, reopen_queue,
> +    bs->drv->bdrv_child_perm(bs, c, role, reopen_queue,
>                                parent_perm, parent_shared,
>                                nperm, nshared);

Is it worth reflowing this call into two lines rather than three?  But 
that's cosmetic.

Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>

--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3226
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org