[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 22/47] block: make device optional in BlockInfo
From: |
Paolo Bonzini |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 22/47] block: make device optional in BlockInfo |
Date: |
Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:49:59 -0400 (EDT) |
----- Messaggio originale -----
> Da: "Kevin Wolf" <address@hidden>
> A: "Paolo Bonzini" <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> Inviato: Martedì, 11 settembre 2012 15:38:33
> Oggetto: Re: [PATCH 22/47] block: make device optional in BlockInfo
>
> Am 24.07.2012 13:04, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> > Targets of a mirroring operation will not have a device. Once we
> > have
> > -blockdev or equivalent, "detached" block devices and non-anonymous
> > backing files also will not have a device.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>
> > ---
> > qapi-schema.json | 5 +++--
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/qapi-schema.json b/qapi-schema.json
> > index fca1806..b00d8c6 100644
> > --- a/qapi-schema.json
> > +++ b/qapi-schema.json
> > @@ -443,7 +443,8 @@
> > # Block device information. This structure describes a virtual
> > device and
> > # the backing device associated with it.
> > #
> > -# @device: The device name associated with the virtual device.
> > +# @device: #optional The device name associated with the virtual
> > device.
> > +# Always included in the output of query-block.
> > #
> > # @type: This field is returned only for compatibility reasons, it
> > should
> > # not be used (always returns 'unknown')
> > @@ -465,7 +466,7 @@
> > # Since: 0.14.0
> > ##
> > { 'type': 'BlockInfo',
> > - 'data': {'device': 'str', 'type': 'str', 'removable': 'bool',
> > + 'data': {'*device': 'str', 'type': 'str', 'removable': 'bool',
> > 'locked': 'bool', '*inserted': 'BlockDeviceInfo',
> > '*tray_open': 'bool', '*io-status':
> > 'BlockDeviceIoStatus'} }
>
> Is this really a compatible change? That 'device' is basically the
> unique key by which block device are identified doesn't exactly make
> feel more comfortable about the change.
As long as query-block ensures that the field is present---yes.
> Of course, not making it optional means that basically we need to go
> the way of referencing the block device in query-block-jobs immediately
> instead of thinking about it later. You know that I preferred this
> from the start, and this change is just another detail that makes me think
> it's the right thing to do.
Indeed; this patch is not anymore in the current version of the series,
after your comments from July/August.
Paolo