From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39041) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YrpBd-0006GN-Q9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 May 2015 11:00:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YrpBa-0001ni-4k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 May 2015 11:00:05 -0400 Message-ID: <5550C3ED.9080700@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 16:59:57 +0200 From: Max Reitz MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1431105726-3682-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> <1431105726-3682-6-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> <5550BF5B.8020906@redhat.com> <20150511145101.GI4962@noname.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20150511145101.GI4962@noname.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Kevin Wolf Cc: armbru@redhat.com, qemu-block@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 11.05.2015 16:51, Kevin Wolf wrote: > 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* Oh, right, how could I have missed that. *cough 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. Sounds good to me. Also, block.h is a more appropriate place, considering this is not an internal option of the block layer, but something for the outer interface. Max