From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NKDFF-0000HC-Ud
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:53:58 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NKDFB-0000Eq-BT
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:53:57 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45937 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NKDFB-0000El-5k
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:53:53 -0500
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.171]:58657)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <weil@mail.berlios.de>) id 1NKDFA-0005zc-9p
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:53:52 -0500
Message-ID: <4B265F7D.1010109@mail.berlios.de>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:53:33 +0100
From: Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] A different way to ask for readonly drive
References: <4B263F0B.90408@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B263F0B.90408@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Naphtali Sprei <nsprei@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Naphtali Sprei schrieb:
> Hi,
> After feedback from Red Hat guys, I've decided to slightly modify the approach to drive's readonly.
> The new approach also addresses the silent fall-back to open the drives' file as read-only when read-write fails
> (permission denied) that causes unexpected behavior.
> Instead of the 'readonly' boolean flag, another flag introduced (a replacement), 'read_write' with three values [on|off|try]:
> read_write=on : open with read and write permission, no fall-back to read-only
> read_write=off: open with read-only permission
> read_write=try: open with read and write permission and if fails, fall-back to read-only (the default if nothing specified)
>
> Suggestions for better naming for flag/values welcomed.
>
> I've tried to explicitly pass the required flags for the bdrv_open function in callers, but probably missed some.
>
>  Naphtali
>
> ...
>   
Instead of on/off, I'd prefer the common shortcuts rw/ro.
"try" is ok, but maybe "rw-ro" is better.

So here are my suggestions:

read_write=rw
read_write=ro
read_write=rw-ro

or

access=rw
access=ro
access=rw-ro

Regards,
Stefan