On 02/23/2016 10:05 PM, Alberto Garcia wrote:
On Tue 23 Feb 2016 02:45:49 PM CET, Eric Blake wrote:
Commit message should say why we need a third event, rather than
reusing either of the other two (my guess: because you don't have a
location, and don't want to modify the existing two to report a
location - but why not just use 'sector-num':0,
'sectors-count':<size of file> to report the entire file as the
location?)
I would also be fine with that solution.
I would also be fine if we added an optional enum member to the
existing event that said which operation failed ('read', 'write',
'flush') - adding optional output members is safe, while converting
existing mandatory output members to optional may confuse existing
clients.
Hi Berto & Eric
Thanks for all your comments. Surely, this is the best option to me too
:-), will fix it in next version.
Thanks
-Xie
That might actually be the best option :-)
Berto
.
