Re: xl block-attach

[Kamala Narasimhan <kamala.narasimhan@gmail.com>]

Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-01-30 at 19:56 +0000, Kamala Narasimhan wrote:
>> The format in which disk information is required in xl block-attach is different
>> than the one expected in the disk configuration option (in the config file).  It
>> might make sense to keep the two consistent (excluding the domain/backend dom id
>> additional param block-attach would require).  Would it be alright if I enforce
>> it in our implementation (in main_blockattach in xl_cmdimpl.c) and modify
>> block-attach help to reflect that change?
> 
> I think it makes sense to have them be the same (or as similar as
> possible).
> 
> OOI, do the xm block-attach and xm config syntaxes differ from each too?
> 

I think so.  The disk config syntax passed to xm through a config file is
different than xm block-attach syntax.

Kamala