From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Wolf Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Warn if a qcow (not qcow2) file is opened Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:22:59 +0200 Message-ID: <4A4C6053.9000200@redhat.com> References: <1246284289-25394-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com> <4A49CE00.4090504@redhat.com> <4A4A13F7.8050904@codemonkey.ws> <5130D93B-F80E-4B4B-8140-F77C7178EC99@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Anthony Liguori , Avi Kivity , kvm@vger.kernel.org, QEMU Developers To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:44709 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753123AbZGBHYL (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jul 2009 03:24:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: <5130D93B-F80E-4B4B-8140-F77C7178EC99@web.de> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Andreas F=E4rber schrieb: > I'm confused now. Only recently someone stepped up, saying that qcow2= =20 > was broken and that qcow should be used instead for safety reasons. =20 > Now all of a sudden, it's the exact opposite, you're even considering= =20 > replacing qcow with qcow2 for vvfat and dropping qcow support. Basically, qcow1 is unmaintained. On the one hand this means that its code is rarely changed and is quite stable in that respect, on the othe= r hand it means that nobody cares if it's broken e.g. by changes to the block layer in general. There is no breakage I know of in the current stable release, however git master has been broken for a month now. And I'm pretty sure that qcow2 receives more testing than qcow. Kevin