From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38648) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bpXRX-0003fC-71 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 05:15:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bpXRV-0002Ko-0b for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 05:15:50 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 10:15:37 +0100 From: "Daniel P. Berrange" Message-ID: <20160929091537.GH5312@redhat.com> Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" References: <20160929083435.GE5312@redhat.com> <20160929084325.GA1118@lemon> <20160929085109.GG5312@redhat.com> <20160929090920.GB1118@lemon> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160929090920.GB1118@lemon> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: handling image options with drive-mirror/drive-backup List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Fam Zheng Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kwolf@redhat.com, Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-block@nongnu.org On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 05:09:20PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote: > On Thu, 09/29 09:51, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 04:43:25PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote: > > > On Thu, 09/29 09:34, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > > So my suggestion is that we deprecate "drive-mirror" and define a fixed > > > > command "drive-mirror-blockdev" (or "blockdev-mirror" ?) that accepts > > > > the proper BlockdevOptions QAPI type for the target as above. > > > > > > Are you aware that there is already a blockdev-mirror command? Supposedly it > > > can do what you need, together with blockdev-add once the latter is deemed > > > ready. > > > > Clearly I'm not aware of that :-) It seems libvirt does not yet use > > blockdev-mirror either, which is where I got the original bug report > > about drive-mirror from. > > Libvirt doesn't support blockdev-add yet, because the command is still being > actively worked on at QEMU side, and is therefore thought to be not "stable" > yet. Though, I think blockdev-add + blockdev-{mirror,backup} are already useful > for common tasks (like your use case with LUKS). In what way is it "unstable", aside from the obvious limitation that some of the blockdev backends are not yet represented in BlockdevOptions QAPI schema ? Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|