From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Markus Armbruster Subject: Re: [RFC/GIT PULL] Linux KVM tool for v3.2 Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:48:07 +0100 Message-ID: References: <4EBB4A21.20707@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Pekka Enberg , Anthony Liguori , Pekka Enberg , Linus Torvalds , Avi Kivity , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig To: Sasha Levin Return-path: In-Reply-To: (Sasha Levin's message of "Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:04:46 +0200") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Sasha Levin writes: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Sasha Levin writes: [...] >>> I'm actually not sure why KVM tool got QCOW support in the first >>> place. You can have anything QCOW provides if you use btrfs (among >>> several other FSs). >> >> Maybe it's just me, but isn't it weird to have a filesystem (QCOW2) >> sitting in the kernel sources that you can't mount(2)? >> > > It's not really a filesystem, it's a disk image :) Sloppy language on my part, sorry about that. It's a transport for blocks. We have a few of those in the kernel already: block devices. Including loop devices and DRBD. You use a filesystem to interpret their contents. The resulting stack is what gets mounted. Adding another transport for blocks to the kernel that cannot be used that way strikes me as weird. [...]