From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42243)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1VcG4p-0003WY-32
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 10:52:01 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1VcG4i-0004Wh-Vq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 10:51:55 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:48067)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1VcG4i-0004Vz-Na
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 10:51:48 -0400
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:51:39 -0400
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20131101105139.3635bd82@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <52715D2F.8000109@redhat.com>
References: <20131028154038.GG2890@irqsave.net>
	<87eh72eumr.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
	<52715D2F.8000109@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] How to introduce bs->node_name ?
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?QmVub8OudA==?= Canet <benoit.canet@irqsave.net>, kwolf@redhat.com, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, stefanha@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 13:25:35 -0600
Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 10/30/2013 07:49 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> 
> > 
> > The first proposal is to add another parameter, say "id".  Users can
> > then refer either to an arbitrary BDS by "id", or (for backward
> > compatibility) to the root BDS by "device".  When the code sees
> > "device", it'll look up the BB, then fetch its root BDS.
> > 
> > CON: Existing parameter "device" becomes compatibility cruft.
> > 
> > PRO: Clean and obvious semantics (in my opinion).
> 
> I like this one as well.

Does this proposal makes "device" optional for existing commands? If it
does then I'm afraid it breaks compatibility because if you don't
specify a device you'll get an error today.

Have you considered adding new commands instead?

> > I think we should review with the QMP schema first, code second.
> 
> Yes, get the interface right, and then it's easier to review the code
> that implements the interface.

Agreed.