On Tue 23 Feb 2016 02:45:49 PM CET, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> Commit message should say why we need a third event, rather than
>>> reusing either of the other two (my guess: because you don't have a
>>> location, and don't want to modify the existing two to report a
>>> location - but why not just use 'sector-num':0,
>>> 'sectors-count':<size of file> to report the entire file as the
>>> location?)
>>
>> I would also be fine with that solution.
>
> I would also be fine if we added an optional enum member to the
> existing event that said which operation failed ('read', 'write',
> 'flush') - adding optional output members is safe, while converting
> existing mandatory output members to optional may confuse existing
> clients.
That might actually be the best option :-)
Berto
