14.06.2019 19:20, Max Reitz wrote: > On 14.06.19 17:46, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: >> 13.06.2019 1:09, Max Reitz wrote: >>> This allows us to differentiate between filters and nodes with COW >>> backing files: Filters cannot be used as overlays at all (for this >>> function). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com> >> >> Overlay created in snapshot operation assumed to consume following writes >> and it's filtered child becomes readonly.. And filter works in completely >> another >> way. >> >> Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsement...@virtuozzo.com> >> >> [hmm, I start to like using "filtered child" collocation when I say about >> this thing. >> didn't you think about renaming backing chain to filtered chain?] > > Hm. There are backing chains and there are backing chains. There are > qemu-internal backing chains that consist of a healthy mix of filters > and COW overlays, and then there are the more high-level backing chains > the user actually manages, where only the overlays are important. > > I think it would make sense to rename the “qemu-internal backing chains" > to “filter chains” or something. But that makes it sound a bit like it > would only mean R/W filters... Maybe just “chain”? > > Actually, the only functions I find are is_backing_chain_frozen & Co, > and they could simply become is_chain_frozen. Is there anything else?
Chain is too general, may be, blockchain? :))) And to be serious, one more reason to rename it is yours bdrv_backing_chain_next which is about user-backing-chain and differs from frozen-chain related functions. However, I don't think that these series is good place for this renaming, it's rather big already. -- Best regards, Vladimir