On 11/25/2015 01:11 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Eric Blake writes:
>
>> On 11/24/2015 11:57 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> Exposing OS-specific SEEK_ constants in our qapi was a mistake
>>> (if the host has SEEK_CUR as 1, but the guest has it as 2, then
>>> the semantics are unclear what should hap
Eric Blake writes:
> On 11/24/2015 11:57 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Exposing OS-specific SEEK_ constants in our qapi was a mistake
>> (if the host has SEEK_CUR as 1, but the guest has it as 2, then
>> the semantics are unclear what should happen); if we had a time
>> machine, we would instead expos
Hi
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 11/24/2015 11:57 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Exposing OS-specific SEEK_ constants in our qapi was a mistake
>> (if the host has SEEK_CUR as 1, but the guest has it as 2, then
>> the semantics are unclear what should happen); if we had a time
On 11/24/2015 11:57 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> Exposing OS-specific SEEK_ constants in our qapi was a mistake
> (if the host has SEEK_CUR as 1, but the guest has it as 2, then
> the semantics are unclear what should happen); if we had a time
> machine, we would instead expose only a symbolic enum. It
Exposing OS-specific SEEK_ constants in our qapi was a mistake
(if the host has SEEK_CUR as 1, but the guest has it as 2, then
the semantics are unclear what should happen); if we had a time
machine, we would instead expose only a symbolic enum. It's too
late to change the fact that we have an int
