From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49993) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vq3td-0004AP-5r for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 11:41:31 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vq3tW-0001dq-N4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 11:41:25 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39285) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vq3tW-0001dm-Fj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 11:41:18 -0500 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 11:41:09 -0500 From: Luiz Capitulino Message-ID: <20131209114109.1c4a8d5f@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20131209162309.GJ3549@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> References: <1386263703-19292-1-git-send-email-benoit@irqsave.net> <1386263703-19292-5-git-send-email-benoit@irqsave.net> <20131206092703.5d60345a@redhat.com> <52A1EC31.7000709@redhat.com> <20131206115215.0427a956@redhat.com> <20131209162309.GJ3549@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V4 4/7] qmp: Allow to change password on names block driver states. List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: famz@redhat.com, =?UTF-8?B?QmVub8OudA==?= Canet , jcody@redhat.com, armbru@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 17:23:09 +0100 Kevin Wolf wrote: > > > I'm leaning slightly towards the approach that Beno=C3=AEt took, if o= nly for > > > the naming aspect (that is, I also thought of the idea of a bool flag, > > > but didn't suggest it because I didn't like the implications on the > > > naming). But I can live with either approach, if anyone else has a > > > strong opinion. > >=20 > > Well, we can pick up any descriptive name 'treat-device-as-a-node', > > 'device-is-a-graph-node'... >=20 > All devices are represented by nodes, so that doesn't make sense. > If anything, 'interpret-device-name-as-node-name', which at the same > time makes it pretty clear that we're abusing a field for something it > wasn't meant for. Having two optionals where they can't be specified at the same time and can't be left off at the same time is a clear abuse as well. The truth is, both proposals are bad. This makes me think that maybe we should introduce a block API 2.0 and deprecate the current one (partly or completely).