Re: [Libguestfs] [libnbd PATCH v2 4/5] api: Add STRICT_FLAGS to set_strict_mode

On 9/17/20 8:32 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 04:49:55PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: >>The next strict knob: allow the user to pass unknown flags across the >>wire (this is different than passing a known flag at the wrong time). >> >>It is interesting to note that NBD only permits 16 bits of flags, but >>we have a signature that takes uint32_t; if we wanted, we could pack >>libnbd-specific flags in the upper bits that the NBD protocol would >>never see. > >This is fine ACK. > >About the "guard" change: I probably would have put that change in a >separate commit. Also you could consider having a default_flags >parameter to avoid having to set guard = None everywhere, although you >would still have to make a one-off change to every *_flags. It would >look like this: > > let default_flags = { flag_prefix = ""; guard = None; flags = [] } > ... > let handshake_flags = { > default_flags with > flag_prefix = "HANDSHAKE_FLAG"; > flags = [ ... ] > } > >(We already do this with "default_call"). Neither of these is a big deal >though. Splitting the patch makes sense. Also, I _did_ consider the 'default_flags with' solution before your reply, but only after I had written the email. In the short term, it is no difference in the amount of churn (adding one line to every flags definition); but in the long term, it is nicer if we ever add more items. So from that perspective, I'll go with that change.