From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KOZiq-0002TX-DW
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:05:44 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KOZip-0002SB-KJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:05:43 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=53456 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KOZip-0002S4-7k
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:05:43 -0400
Received: from yw-out-1718.google.com ([74.125.46.153]:64005)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <blauwirbel@gmail.com>) id 1KOZip-00047g-80
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:05:43 -0400
Received: by yw-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 6so599659ywa.82
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:05:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <f43fc5580807310805p10c284c7s22940f801f8f1784@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:05:41 +0300
From: "Blue Swirl" <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] PATCH: Control over drive open modes for backing file
In-Reply-To: <20080731135512.GF18548@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20080731113120.GJ23888@redhat.com>
	<20080731133420.GD18548@redhat.com>
	<200807311446.56381.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<20080731135512.GF18548@redhat.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
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: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>

On 7/31/08, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 02:46:55PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
>  > > +#define BDRV_O_RDONLY      0x0001 /* Force read-only */
>  > > +#define BDRV_O_WRONLY      0x0002 /* Force writeable, no fallback */
>  > > +#define BDRV_O_RDWR        0x0003 /* Try writeable, fallback to read-only
>  > > */
>  >
>  > This is IMHO really misleading.  Normal O_* are not bitflags. The code uses
>  > these as bitflags sometimes, which means your descriptions are contradictory.
>
>
> One alternative approach I considered would be to not have an explicit
>  flag for writable, and instead have a flag to explicitly indicate that
>  fallback to read-only shouldn't be attempted.
>
>
>    #define BDRV_O_RDONLY            0x0001
>
>    #define BDRV_O_NO_RO_FALLBACK    0x0002
>
>  This would probably make the patch smaller because I won't need to update
>  all the callers which assume flags of '0'  gives a writable file, falling
>  back to RO.
>
>  Other suggestions welcome too...

Write-only should mean that only writing is allowed, read access
should not be needed.