|
From: | Anthony Liguori |
Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: block: format vs. protocol, and how they stack |
Date: | Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:37:37 -0500 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100423 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.4 |
On 06/21/2010 10:00 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Keeping these separate makes a lot of sense to me, even with my user hat on. And as lon as we don't require the transport protocol but fall back to file it's even more understandable for the users, as he simply doesn't have to care about it for the 99% case. Now for the image format specifying it usually is a good thing as the autodetecting could easily get into trouble when the guest creates say a full-device qcow2 image in a device that's an image file on the host.
I agree that transport makes a lot more sense. There's just a couple cases we should consider: [1] -blockdev format=raw,file=/dev/cdrom,id=blk1 [2] -blockdev format=vvfat,file=/path/to/directory,id=blk1For [1], we just defaulting transport to file is would not give us the same semantics we have today. Is that desirable?
It's not clear to me why [2] should be transport=vvfat. vvfat really isn't a transport. What about things like blkdebug and if we had something like a ramdisk?
Regards, Anthony Liguori
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |