From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Wolf Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for July 27 Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:28:17 +0200 Message-ID: <4C4EDEF1.9060507@redhat.com> References: <20100726212849.GB2651@x200.localdomain> <4C4E0C05.5030004@codemonkey.ws> <4C4E1A33.7050709@codemonkey.ws> <4C4ED85B.2090807@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Markus Armbruster , Chris Wright , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41947 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751949Ab0G0N2T (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:28:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4C4ED85B.2090807@codemonkey.ws> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Am 27.07.2010 15:00, schrieb Anthony Liguori: > On 07/27/2010 02:19 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Anthony Liguori writes: >> >> >>> - any additional input on probed_raw? >>> >> Isn't it a fait accompli? I stopped providing input when commit >> 79368c81 appeared. >> > > No. 79368c81 was to close the security hole (and I do consider it a > security hole). But as I mentioned on the list, I'm also not satisfied > with it and that's why I proposed probed_raw. I was hoping to get a > little more input from those that objected to 79368c81 as to whether > probed_raw was more agreeable. Actually I believe qraw is less agreeable. It just too much magic. You wouldn't expect that your raw images are turned into some other format that you can't mount or use with any other program any more. Kevin