From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35751) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yrp32-0005yC-Mr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 May 2015 10:51:13 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yrp31-0006xT-VD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 May 2015 10:51:12 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 16:51:01 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20150511145101.GI4962@noname.redhat.com> References: <1431105726-3682-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> <1431105726-3682-6-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> <5550BF5B.8020906@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5550BF5B.8020906@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 05/34] block: Use macro for cache option names List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Max Reitz Cc: armbru@redhat.com, qemu-block@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Am 11.05.2015 um 16:40 hat Max Reitz geschrieben: > On 08.05.2015 19:21, Kevin Wolf wrote: > >Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf > >--- > > blockdev.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------ > > include/block/block.h | 8 ++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > Any reason for not making it part of the BLOCK_OPT_* macros in block_int.h? Those aren't bdrv_open(), but bdrv_create() options, which should be abundantly clear from the fact that they start in BLOCK instead of BDRV. *cough* I guess I can move the new options to block_int.h indeed, but when it comes to renaming to make the difference clearer, I think I'd prefer renaming the create options. Any opinions on that? Kevin