28.11.2019 13:52, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 28.11.19 10:31, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> 27.11.2019 16:15, Max Reitz wrote:
>>> This enum will supplement BdrvChildClass when it comes to what role (or
>>> combination of roles) a child takes for its parent.
>>>
>>> Because empty enums are not allowed, let us just start with it filled.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> include/block/block.h | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/block/block.h b/include/block/block.h
>>> index 38963ef203..36817d5689 100644
>>> --- a/include/block/block.h
>>> +++ b/include/block/block.h
>>> @@ -279,6 +279,44 @@ enum {
>>> DEFAULT_PERM_UNCHANGED = BLK_PERM_ALL &
>>> ~DEFAULT_PERM_PASSTHROUGH,
>>> };
>>>
>>> +typedef enum BdrvChildRole {
>>
>> Don't you want to call it just BdrvChildFlags ?
>> Benefits:
>>
>> 1. Do not intersect with old BdrvChildRole.
>
> Well, that doesn’t change the fact that the old BdrvChildRole just
> doesn’t describe a role.
>
>> 2. I think, BDRV_CHILD_STAY_AT_NODE is not a role, but just a property or
>> flag..
>
> I can be convinced to let STAY_AT_NODE stay a property of
> BdrvChildClass. :-)
or BdrvChild if we want it to be property of object, not class.
>
> What I don’t like about “BdrvChildFlags” is that “flags” doesn’t express
> anything. The permissions are flags, too.
>
> Max
>
--
Best regards,
Vladimir
