[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block: add drive_backup HMP command
From: |
Paolo Bonzini |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block: add drive_backup HMP command |
Date: |
Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:36:53 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130514 Thunderbird/17.0.6 |
Il 25/06/2013 16:06, Kevin Wolf ha scritto:
> Am 25.06.2013 um 15:49 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
>> Il 25/06/2013 15:26, Kevin Wolf ha scritto:
>>>>> + if (!full) {
>>>>> + error_setg(&errp, "-f is not yet implemented");
>>>>> + hmp_handle_error(mon, &errp);
>>>>> + return;
>>>>> + }
>>> Then why make it a valid option and confuse users in the help text by
>>> describing options that don't really exist?
>>
>> Because otherwise we're stuck with a meaning of the flag that is
>> different between drive-mirror and block-backup.
>
> Do you mean when "otherwise" isn't only "we don't add -f now", but also
> "we accidentally add a -f with different meaning later"? Not sure if
> there's a real danger of that when we're aware that we want -f with the
> same meaning as for mirroring.
We have drive-mirror with:
* the default is 'top'
* -f gives 'full'
block-backup for now only implements 'full'. If we do not force the
user to add -f, the default is 'full' and we should not change it later.
However, I would move the "not yet implemented" error from HMP to QMP.
This way, both drive-mirror and block-backup will have a mandatory
'sync' argument. We plan to implement it anyway, and it makes sense imo
to avoid gratuitous differences in the APIs.
Paolo
> Apart from that, it's HMP, so even in the unlikely case that we mess up,
> fixing it is still an option.
>
> Kevin
>