From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=42080 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ObFKu-00041y-Kn
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:06:35 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>) id 1ObFKr-0006Nk-Go
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:06:26 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:15587)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>) id 1ObFKr-0006NV-6U
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:06:25 -0400
Message-ID: <4C45C97C.9040006@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:06:20 +0200
From: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1279639056-20465-1-git-send-email-Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
	<4C45C355.2000204@codemonkey.ws> <4C45C87C.4060709@redhat.com>
	<4C45C8DC.9000200@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <4C45C8DC.9000200@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] Disable O_DIRECT for physical CDROM/DVD
	drives
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.nongnu.org/archive/html/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: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 07/20/10 18:03, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 07/20/2010 11:02 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> On 07/20/10 17:40, Anthony Liguori wrote:   
>>> Wouldn't a better solution be to have a cdrom_read/cdrom_write hook that
>>> did the appropriate bouncing?
>>>
>>> Silently disabling something a user explicitly asked for is not a good
>>> option.  In the very least, it should error out entirely.
>>>      
>> I thought about this, but it would require basically fixing up or
>> copying all of the pread/pwrite code to use the right block size. This
>> is really more of a band-aid but it should be pretty safe.
> 
> Please throw an error.  If a user explicitly asks for something, and we
> can provide it, we should not continue.  Changing it to something else
> is a bug.
> 
> That doesn't apply when we're changing a default value, but if the user
> asks for something, we should give it to them or fail.

Ok that seems fair enough! I'll post an updated patch in a minute.

Cheers,
Jes