On 01/13/2016 07:25 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: >>> The name BDRV_O_INCOMING now doesn't quite match semantics on the >>> source, but I don't have any better suggestions. BDRV_O_LIMITED_USE? >>> BDRV_O_HANDOFF? At any rate, I fully agree with your logic of locking >>> things down on the source to mark that the destination is about to take >>> over write access to the file. >>> >> >> INCOMING is handy as it keeps the code simple, even if it's weird to >> read. Is it worth adding the extra ifs/case statements everywhere to add >> in BDRV_O_HANDOFF? Maybe in the future someone will use BDRV_O_INCOMING >> to mean something more specific (data is incoming, not just in the >> process of being handed off) that could cause problems. >> >> Maybe even just renaming BDRV_O_INCOMING right now to be BDRV_O_HANDOFF >> would accomplish the semantics we want on both source and destination >> without needing two flags. >> >> Follow your dreams, Go with what you feel. > > How about renaming BDRV_O_INCOMING to BDRV_O_INACTIVE?
BDRV_O_INACTIVE works for me. Do the rename as a separate mechanical patch, obviously. -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
