From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44381) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ubo2i-0006BH-0T for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 May 2013 04:23:37 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ubo2g-0003RO-PI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 May 2013 04:23:35 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:65484) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ubo2g-0003OX-IK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 May 2013 04:23:34 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 10:23:27 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20130513082327.GA6419@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> References: <1367221335-22777-1-git-send-email-stefanha@redhat.com> <1367221335-22777-3-git-send-email-stefanha@redhat.com> <20130508124859.GH3093@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> <518DBC5E.1020700@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <518DBC5E.1020700@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/3] block: add block-backup QMP command List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: Fam Zheng , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Wenchao Xia , imain@redhat.com, Stefan Hajnoczi , pbonzini@redhat.com, dietmar@proxmox.com Am 11.05.2013 um 05:34 hat Eric Blake geschrieben: > On 05/08/2013 06:49 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > Am 29.04.2013 um 09:42 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben: > >> @block-backup > >> > > > drive-backup would probably be a more consistent naming. We would then > > still have block-backup for a future low-level command that doesn't > > create everything by itself but takes an existing BlockDriverState (e.g. > > created by blockdev-add). > > At least it would match why we named a command 'drive-mirror' instead of > 'block-mirror'. > > Hmm, looking at qapi-schema.json, I wonder if we can rename > 'BlockdevAction' to 'TransactionAction' as used in the @transaction > command. It wouldn't change what is sent over the wire in JSON, and > until we have full introspection, there is no visibility into the type > name used. Changing the name now would let it be more generic to adding > future transaction items that are not blockdev related. Good point, I never realised that once we have schema introspection, doing such changes is harder. I'm all for it - it's bad enough that we have specifically block jobs instead of just background jobs, we shouldn't repeat the same mistake with transactions. Kevin