On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 04:57:41PM +0100, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > On Donnerstag, 19. März 2020 14:10:26 CET Ján Tomko wrote: > > On a Tuesday in 2020, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > > >Introduce new 'multidevs' option for filesystem. > > > > > > <filesystem type='mount' accessmode='mapped' multidevs='remap'> > > > > I don't like the 'multidevs' name, but cannot think of anything > > beter. > > > > 'collisions' maybe? > > Not sure if 'collisions' is better, e.g. collisions='remap' sounds scary. :) > And which collision would that be? At least IMO 'multidevs' is less ambigious. > I have no problem though to change it to whatever name you might come up with. > Just keep the resulting key-value pair set in mind: > > multidevs='default' > multidevs='remap' > multidevs='forbid' > multidevs='warn' > > vs. > > collisions='default' > collisions='remap' <- probably misleading what 'remap' means in this case > collisions='forbid' > collisions='warn' <- wrong, it warns about multiple devices, not about file ID > collisions. > > So different key-name might also require different value-names. > > Another option would be the long form 'multi-devices=...' I tried to come up with names when this was posted to QEMU, but didn't think of much better than multidevs, so I think that's acceptable for libvirt usage. "collisions" isn't better enough to justify different naming from QEMU Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
