[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] PATCH: Control over drive open modes for backing file
From: |
Jamie Lokier |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] PATCH: Control over drive open modes for backing file |
Date: |
Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:01:13 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) |
Blue Swirl wrote:
> On 7/31/08, Daniel P. Berrange <address@hidden> 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.
You can't write to most formats unless you can read the metadata.
Flat is the exception, but WRONLY doesn't seem particularly useful.
Whereas read-only floppy images, for example, resemble real hardware.
I would suggest: read-only, read-write, and try-write (traditional behaviour).
Or maybe get rid of the last one.
-- Jamie
Re: [Qemu-devel] PATCH: Control over drive open modes for backing file, Anthony Liguori, 2008/07/31