From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54288) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cMdZe-0003Tj-Gb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 11:29:03 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cMdZb-0008NN-DA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 11:29:02 -0500 Received: from mailhub.sw.ru ([195.214.232.25]:45640 helo=relay.sw.ru) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cMdZb-0008NB-1W for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 11:28:59 -0500 References: <20161214150840.10899-1-alex@alex.org.uk> <31576d46-c0ed-29b9-71a0-5aca1790799a@virtuozzo.com> <6D1B30FC-FD7E-474C-A8E3-FD87E7AA1364@alex.org.uk> <5e9150ed-2127-f2e8-f9db-a514e8f0ddf8@virtuozzo.com> <5E697C22-5FBB-49A2-A018-A6B96E29FE84@alex.org.uk> <94ef3ef2-b76f-fa5d-cbaf-8990ce2b1be8@virtuozzo.com> <0F1DC4AE-5C9E-4AE6-8141-AE6B398EBF73@alex.org.uk> <2812e3e2-983a-42de-a55f-590a87b7fece@virtuozzo.com> <20161228001855.ukrtvzeictke4ex2@grep.be> From: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy Message-ID: <1ae82a77-3e36-9b57-6221-e7cd06f0a50b@virtuozzo.com> Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 19:28:43 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Nbd] [PATCH] Further tidy-up on block status List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alex Bligh , Wouter Verhelst Cc: "nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net" , Kevin Wolf , "Denis V . Lunev" , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , "Stefan stefanha@redhat. com" , Paolo Bonzini , John Snow 29.12.2016 19:04, Alex Bligh wrote: >> On 28 Dec 2016, at 00:18, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >> >> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 05:52:54PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: >>> Shouldn't we add some flags to REP_META_CONTEXT, for client to be insure, is >>> returned string a direct context name or some kind of wildcard? Just a flags >>> field, with one flag defined for now: NBD_REP_META_CONTEXT_LEAF and others >>> reserved. >> I think it should be up to the metadata context namespace definition to >> define which syntax represents a direct context name and which >> represents a wildcard (if the latter are supported). >> >> A client which doesn't know what a given metadata context implements >> can't reasonably ask for information from that context anyway (since >> then the client wouldn't know what to do with the returned information), >> so it doesn't help much to add a flag here. > I agree. > > Vladimir: if this isn't clear from the text, please suggest a change. > I'm ok with Wouter's arguments -- Best regards, Vladimir