From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LsNBV-0003qT-Iz
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:18:45 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LsNBP-0003nt-QP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:18:45 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=32857 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LsNBP-0003nl-KM
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:18:39 -0400
Received: from mo-p00-ob.rzone.de ([81.169.146.162]:11868)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <mail@kevin-wolf.de>) id 1LsNBP-0006C9-0J
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:18:39 -0400
From: Kevin Wolf <mail@kevin-wolf.de>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qemu-io: Verify read data by patterns
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:18:11 +0200
References: <1239284776-2115-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com>
	<200904091907.45921@kevin-wolf.de> <20090410161403.GA8452@lst.de>
In-Reply-To: <20090410161403.GA8452@lst.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200904102218.11800@kevin-wolf.de>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

Am Freitag, 10. April 2009 18:14 schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 07:07:45PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > I considered that, but actually it's not a simple flag anymore as soon as
> > it has a parameter. Don't know, you could argue either way.
>
> We have it that way in writev.  I don't really care too much either way,
> but I do care for consistency between the individual commands.

Sure, this is a good point. I can't see the Pflag in writev though, you just 
change the default pattern if -P is specified.

Anyway, we're discussing details. I'll change the name to Pflag and the line 
break so that it works with eight character tabs.  Anything else to do before 
it could be merged?

Kevin