From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42902) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1egX0G-00080t-BV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 09:35:20 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1egX06-0002cL-EW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 09:35:15 -0500 Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:34:47 +0100 From: Kashyap Chamarthy Message-ID: <20180130143447.quqbwpitu3iau2qv@eukaryote> References: <20180130063433.11605-1-famz@redhat.com> <20180130063433.11605-3-famz@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v6 2/2] qemu-img: Document --force-share / -U List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: Fam Zheng , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com, Kevin Wolf , Max Reitz On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 08:23:50AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 01/30/2018 12:34 AM, Fam Zheng wrote: [...] > > +If specified, @code{qemu-img} will open the image in shared mode, allowing > > +concurrent writers. For example, this can be used to get the image information > > Actually, we only permit one writer at a time. Would it be better to > say "allowing a concurrent writer"? Definitely worth rewording. Otherwise the two sentences: "If specified, @code{qemu-img} will open the image in shared mode, allowing concurrent writers." "This option is only allowed when opening images in read-only mode." are at odds with each other --- it says "concurrent writers" are allowed, BUT "allowed only when opening images in 'read-only' mode". > > +(with 'info' subcommand) when the image is used by a running guest. Note that > > +this could produce inconsistent results because of concurrent metadata changes, > > +etc. This option is only allowed when opening images in read-only mode. > > After all, we are stating that this process (which must be read-only, > because we can't have two writers at once) is permitting some other > process to be the concurrent writer (but not multiple processes to be > concurrent writers) Precisely. So it's worth being clearer. With the rewording suggested by Eric: Reviewed-by: Kashyap Chamarthy -- /kashyap