From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52743) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vq412-00084r-0I for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 11:49:09 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vq40w-0004Ym-1W for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 11:49:03 -0500 Received: from nodalink.pck.nerim.net ([62.212.105.220]:46601 helo=paradis.irqsave.net) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vq40v-0004Xt-NZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 11:48:57 -0500 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 17:48:50 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Beno=EEt?= Canet Message-ID: <20131209164850.GG3364@irqsave.net> References: <1386263703-19292-1-git-send-email-benoit@irqsave.net> <1386263703-19292-5-git-send-email-benoit@irqsave.net> <20131206092703.5d60345a@redhat.com> <52A1EC31.7000709@redhat.com> <20131206115215.0427a956@redhat.com> <20131209162309.GJ3549@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> <20131209114109.1c4a8d5f@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131209114109.1c4a8d5f@redhat.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V4 4/7] qmp: Allow to change password on names block driver states. List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Luiz Capitulino Cc: Kevin Wolf , famz@redhat.com, jcody@redhat.com, armbru@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com Le Monday 09 Dec 2013 =E0 11:41:09 (-0500), Luiz Capitulino a =E9crit : > On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 17:23:09 +0100 > Kevin Wolf wrote: >=20 > > > > I'm leaning slightly towards the approach that Beno=EEt took, if = only for > > > > the naming aspect (that is, I also thought of the idea of a bool = flag, > > > > but didn't suggest it because I didn't like the implications on t= he > > > > naming). But I can live with either approach, if anyone else has= a > > > > strong opinion. > > >=20 > > > Well, we can pick up any descriptive name 'treat-device-as-a-node', > > > 'device-is-a-graph-node'... > >=20 > > All devices are represented by nodes, so that doesn't make sense. > > If anything, 'interpret-device-name-as-node-name', which at the same > > time makes it pretty clear that we're abusing a field for something i= t > > wasn't meant for. >=20 > Having two optionals where they can't be specified at the same time > and can't be left off at the same time is a clear abuse as well. >=20 > The truth is, both proposals are bad. This makes me think that maybe > we should introduce a block API 2.0 and deprecate the current one > (partly or completely). >=20 It took me one year to go from the block filters and block backend requirement to the state where my customer allows me to work on block fil= ters. Now if we add to this the new requirement of block API 2.0 I think I will= soon have time to concentrate myself on non qemu projects :( Best regards Beno=EEt