Re: Storing command line options in qcow2 images

[Avi Kivity <avi-atKUWr5tajBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>]

Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>  
>>> I don't think adding annotations as snapshots is the right 
>>> approach.  I think proper support should be added in the header.  I 
>>> wouldn't be too concerned with breaking compatibility in qcow2.  
>>> That's why it's qcow2 and not just an updated version of qcow, qcow2 
>>> is still, AFAIK, open for breakage.
>>>       
>>
>> Are all the users' images open for breakage too?
>>   
>
> FWIW, you can extended the header without causing a breakage.  Just 
> bump the version, add the field, and add appropriate code.  Of course, 
> this is technically qcow v3 but it's a good opportunity to make things 
> a bit sanier such that instead of check version == QCOW_VERSION that 
> version >= QCOW_VERSION.
>

This sounds much better.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >>  http://get.splunk.com/