On 12/13/2016 06:18 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 08:38:12AM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> Am 12.12.2016 um 19:12 hat Wouter Verhelst geschrieben: >>> I'm not opposed to this proposal, per se, but there seems to be some >>> disagreement (by Kevin, for instance) on whether this extension is at >>> all useful. >> >> FWIW, I'm not opposed to adding the flag. I don't think it can hurt, but >> I wanted to ask the question so that we don't end up adding a feature >> that noone actually uses. Ultimately it's your call as a maintainer >> anyway how conservative you want to be with spec additions. > > I'm not opposed either, but I do agree with you that we shouldn't add > such a feature if it doesn't end up getting used. Especially so if it > burns a flag in the (16-bit) "transmission flags" field, where space is > at a premium.
No, it is NOT a "transmission flag", as it is a per-export property (where we currently have 64 bits). -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
