From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Warn if a qcow (not qcow2) file is opened Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:32:39 -0500 Message-ID: <4A4A13F7.8050904@codemonkey.ws> References: <1246284289-25394-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com> <4A49CE00.4090504@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Avi Kivity , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Kevin Wolf Return-path: Received: from mail-ew0-f210.google.com ([209.85.219.210]:56077 "EHLO mail-ew0-f210.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751379AbZF3Ncl (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:32:41 -0400 Received: by mail-ew0-f210.google.com with SMTP id 6so167519ewy.37 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 06:32:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4A49CE00.4090504@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Kevin Wolf wrote: > Avi Kivity schrieb: > >> The qcow block driver format is no longer maintained and likely contains >> serious data corruptors. Urge users to stay away for it, and advertise >> the new and improved replacement. >> >> Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity >> > > vvfat is using qcow internally, so the warning will appear there, too. > Not that warning against vvfat would be a bad thing, but this error > message could be confusing. > > Maybe we're lucky enough and vvfat survives a s/qcow/qcow2/, but I > really never wanted to touch that code... > I'm not sure how I feel about this. Can we prove qcow is broken? Is it only broken for writes and not reads? If we're printing a warning, does that mean we want to deprecate qcow and eventually remove it (or remove write support, at least)? Regards, Anthony Liguori