On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 04:33:42PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 24/03/2016 16:25, Eric Blake wrote:
> >> However, let's make these bits, so that
> >>
> >> NBD_STATE_ALLOCATED (0x1), LBA extent is present on the block device
> >> NBD_STATE_ZERO (0x2), LBA extent will read as zeroes
> >
> > Should we flip the sense and call this NBD_STATE_UNALLOCATED (0 means
> > allocated, 1 means not present), so that an overall status of 0 is a
> > safe default?
>
> Double negations are evil (and don't work the same in all languages), so
> I think it's a worse option.
I agree that a bit which says "unallocated" is confusing in that manner,
but that just means we need a better name (one that doesn't contain
"un-" or "not")
I like the idea of having zero be the "sensible" default, although I'm
quite unable to come up with a better name myself.
--
< ron> I mean, the main *practical* problem with C++, is there's like a dozen
people in the world who think they really understand all of its rules,
and pretty much all of them are just lying to themselves too.
-- #debian-devel, OFTC, 2016-02-12
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature