From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:58644) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QKZRg-00077s-RX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 May 2011 13:13:05 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QKZRe-0002Ho-HG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 May 2011 13:13:04 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50366) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QKZRe-0002Hh-5d for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 May 2011 13:13:02 -0400 From: Markus Armbruster References: <1305212715-26767-1-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> <1305212715-26767-4-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> <20110512140143.1ffb7eeb@doriath> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 19:12:56 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20110512140143.1ffb7eeb@doriath> (Luiz Capitulino's message of "Thu, 12 May 2011 14:01:43 -0300") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/6] block QMP: Drop query-block member "type" (type= in info block) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Luiz Capitulino Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, hch@lst.de, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kraxel@redhat.com Luiz Capitulino writes: > On Thu, 12 May 2011 17:05:12 +0200 > Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> Its value is unreliable: a block device used as floppy has type >> "floppy" if created with if=floppy, but type "hd" if created with >> if=none. >> >> That's because with if=none, the type is at best a declaration of >> intent: the drive can be connected to any guest device. Its type is >> really the guest device's business. Reporting it here is wrong. > > It reports how the guest is using the device, right? I'd say that's what > users/clients are interested in knowing. The value is *unreliable*. It may or may not match how the guest is using the device. I doubt users are interested in unreliable information. > Also, we can't just drop it from QMP. We should first note it's deprecated. Would you accept a change to the more honest value "unknown" for the deprecation period?