From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NXXuq-00037n-1t for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 05:36:00 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NXXul-00036C-1m for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 05:35:59 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36814 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NXXuk-000363-Np for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 05:35:54 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:63579) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NXXuk-0005j6-99 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 05:35:54 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:32:49 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] Clean-up a little bit the RW related bits of BDRV_O_FLAGS. BDRV_O_RDONLY gone (and so is BDRV_O_ACCESS). Default value for bdrv_flags (0/zero) is READ-ONLY. Need to explicitly request READ-WRITE. Message-ID: <20100120103248.GA22941@redhat.com> References: <1263739695-13043-1-git-send-email-nsprei@redhat.com> <1263739695-13043-2-git-send-email-nsprei@redhat.com> <1263739695-13043-3-git-send-email-nsprei@redhat.com> <20100117153202.GC3420@redhat.com> <20100118104816.GC5874@redhat.com> <20100120020543.GG11920@shareable.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: Naphtali Sprei , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 08:26:56AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Jamie Lokier writes: > > > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:34:59AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> > BDRV_O_RDWR is a flag, just like BDRV_SNAPSHOT. We don't have > >> > BDRV_DONT_SNAPSHOT, either. > >> > >> Well, this just mirros the file access macros: we have RDONLY, WRONLY > >> and RDRW. I assume this similarity is just historical? > > > > To avoid confusion, why don't we just call the flag BDRV_O_WRITABLE. > > Then it's obvious what clearing that flag means. > > Sounds good to me. Won't it be confused with WRONLY? -- MST