From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54255) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1alua7-0004pn-MU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2016 04:37:28 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1alua3-0006zg-Ms for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2016 04:37:27 -0400 Received: from barbershop.grep.be ([89.106.240.122]:43664) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1alua3-0006w1-GO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2016 04:37:23 -0400 Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 09:59:33 +0200 From: Wouter Verhelst Message-ID: <20160401075933.GA25514@grep.be> References: <1459448132-52364-1-git-send-email-alex@alex.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1459448132-52364-1-git-send-email-alex@alex.org.uk> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Nbd] [PATCH 2/2] Correct definition of NBD_CMD_FLAG_FUA List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alex Bligh Cc: "nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net" , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 07:15:32PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote: > NBD_CMD_FLAG_FUA is defined as 1<<0 in the documentation, but > 1<<16 in nbd.h. It is not used anywhere within the code. Yes it is: wouter@gangtai:~/code/c/nbd$ grep -rl CMD_FLAG_FUA * doc/proto.md make-integrityhuge.c nbd.h nbd-server.c nbd-trdump.c tests/run/nbd-tester-client.c wouter@gangtai:~/code/c/nbd$ I don't mind bringing the code in sync with what the documentation says, but it should not change behaviour ;-) -- < ron> I mean, the main *practical* problem with C++, is there's like a dozen people in the world who think they really understand all of its rules, and pretty much all of them are just lying to themselves too. -- #debian-devel, OFTC, 2016-02-12