From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:45292) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S24WD-0005bS-To for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:37:55 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S24WB-0006Op-8y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:37:49 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:17737) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S24WA-0006Nd-Uv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:37:47 -0500 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:37:45 -0300 From: Luiz Capitulino Message-ID: <20120227143745.4550d2c0@doriath.home> In-Reply-To: <4F4BB277.6050608@codemonkey.ws> References: <4F4BB277.6050608@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] drive transactions (was Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] Add the blockdev-reopen and blockdev-migrate commands) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, Jeff Cody , mtosatti@redhat.com, armbru@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Federico Simoncelli , Paolo Bonzini On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:42:31 -0600 Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 02/27/2012 10:33 AM, Federico Simoncelli wrote: > > I'm all for the modularity of the commands (I suggested it since the beginning), > > but all this infrastructure goes way beyond what I'd need for oVirt now. > > > > When I submitted my patches we knew that my work wasn't the definitive solution > > (eg: the future implementation of -blockdev). So I'd suggest to try and settle > > with something that is good enough and that is not preventing a future improvement. > > > > What about having a (temporary) flag in drive-mirror to accept also a new-image-file > > until we will have the optimal solution? > > Unless there are extenuating circumstances (like the absence of core > infrastructure in QEMU), then we should not add commands that we know are not > the right command. > > We have to support our commands forever. Agreed. Worst case we have vendor extension support that downstream can use to add its own commands.