[PATCH 4/4] Update tests for lvseg apis.

Dne 21.10.2010 18:38, Petr Rockai napsal(a):
> Zdenek Kabelac <[email protected]> writes:
>> Dne 19.10.2010 15:24, Dave Wysochanski napsal(a):
>>> diff --git a/test/api/test.c b/test/api/test.c
>>> index fea3d0d..20f4210 100644
>>> --- a/test/api/test.c
>>> +++ b/test/api/test.c
>>> @@ -69,6 +69,8 @@ static void _show_help(void)
>>>  	       "List the PVs that exist in VG vgname\n");
>>>  	printf("'vg_list_lvs vgname': "
>>>  	       "List the LVs that exist in VG vgname\n");
>>> +	printf("'lv_list_lvsegs vgname lvname': "
>>> +	       "List the LV segments that exist in LV vgname/lvname\n");
>>>  	printf("'vgs_open': "
>>>  	       "List the VGs that are currently open\n");
>>>  	printf("'vgs': "
>>> @@ -569,12 +571,15 @@ static void _vg_tag(char **argv, int argc, int add)
>>>  	       add ? "adding":"removing", argv[2], argv[1]);
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> -static void _print_property_value(struct lvm_property_value value)
>>> +static void _print_property_value(const char *name,
>>> +				  struct lvm_property_value v)
> 
>> const struct if you do not modify it.
> Whether or not you modify it, the change cannot be reflected in the
> caller. This is call by value.



> 
>> And I think using pointer would be wise decision here.
> Care to elaborate? What's wise about using a pointer here?

(const struct lvm_proper_value *v)

avoid doing local copy of the 'v' structure - currently it's not a big
difference, but as you pointed out in other emails - it could be extended in
future. And I think we are using  pointers in other calls as well - so we
should stay consistent also internally - and just pass pointers all the time -
instead of thinking when to use struct and when the pointer should be passed.

Zdenek