Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes:
> On 06/02/2010 06:55 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> * Like -drive, -blockdev ignores cache= silently when snapshot=on. Do
>> we really want that?
>
> Yes, the changes are throw-away by definition. Might as well use
> cache=unsafe.
I understand why that's the most sensible cache setting. But if the
user explicitly asks for something else, I think we better give it to
him, or tell him no. Ignoring him silently isn't nice.
>> + if (snapshot) {
>> + /* always use write-back with snapshot */
>> + /* FIXME ignores explicit cache= *silently*; really want that? */
>> + flags &= ~BDRV_O_CACHE_MASK;
>> + flags |= (BDRV_O_SNAPSHOT | BDRV_O_CACHE_WB);
>> + flags |= BDRV_O_SNAPSHOT;
>
> Cut and paste?
Pasto indeed, will fix. Thanks!
