[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v4 5/5] qapi: allow blockdev-add for ssh

From: Eric Blake
Subject: Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v4 5/5] qapi: allow blockdev-add for ssh
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 08:27:22 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0

On 10/26/2016 03:31 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:

>>> +# @host_key_check       #optional defines how and what to check the host
>>> +#                       key against, defaults to "yes"
>> I still have reservations about this parameter.
> It doesn't seem to be as easy as an enum. The real thing is structured
> because some we support colon-separated mode/key, like this:
>     host_key_check=md5:xx:yy:zz:...
> The description for the real thing (to which we would have to
> translate the existing string) seems to be something like this:
> { 'enum': 'HostKeyCheckMode', 'data': [ 'yes', 'no', 'md5', 'sha1' ] }
> { 'union': 'HostKeyCheck',
>   'base': {
>       'mode': 'HostKeyCheckMode',
>   },
>   'discriminator': 'mode',
>   'data': {
>       'yes': {},
>       'no': {},
>       'md5': { 'key': 'str' },
>       'sha1': { 'key': 'str' }
>   }

Okay, that does look like a better definition.

> (Hm, are inline struct definitions even allowed for union branches, or
> do we have to create a named type there?)

I have a patch for making them inline struct definitions, but it
probably won't be in 2.8 unless it solves problems that we can't work
around in other ways, due to Markus' review backlog on other qapi
patches. Creating a named type now may be verbose, but we could always
simplify later with an inline struct without breaking back-compat once
my patch does make it in.

>> I think we have time to fix it as followups during soft freeze if
>> Kevin would rather get your initial patches in now, if that's what it
>> takes to meet soft freeze deadlines, but I do not want to bake it into
>> the actual 2.8 release without addressing those concerns.
> We don't really have a soft freeze like before any more, we're rather
> going into something that is still called soft freeze, but is really a
> hard freeze in disguise. So I'm not sure if we can change this during
> the freeze.
> If we can't work it out this week, I'd drop host_key_check from the
> schema and leave a TODO comment instead so that it could be added in the
> 2.9 timeframe.

That's also a reasonable idea.  Better to avoid a rush that ends up
baking in an API we can't support, even if the initial release is less
powerful as a result.

Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]