On 02/22/2012 07:51 AM, Jiri Denemark wrote: > > I was also wondering if we should rather use more specific name for both > the error code and flag, such as VIR(_ERR)?_MIGRATE_UNSAFE_CACHE > (or ...UNSAFE_DISK) in the case we find other unsafe conditions...
I think that if we ever have sub-categories of unsafe operations, where we want the user to pass varying flags to allow one but not the other sub-category, then we could do: VIR_ERR_MIGRATION_UNSAFE_CACHE = 1<<9, VIR_ERR_MIGRATION_UNSAFE_DISK = 1<<10, VIR_ERR_MIGRATION_UNSAFE = (VIR_ERR_MIGRATION_UNSAFE_CACHE|VIR_ERR_MIGRATION_UNSAFE_DISK) that is, make the current generic name remain generic by having it cover multiple bits, while the specific bits control the sub-options. But for now, I'm fine with just a single, shorter, name. -- Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
