From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58966) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vq4F7-0007nM-Go for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 12:03:45 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vq4F1-0001x2-Px for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 12:03:37 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:25489) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vq4F1-0001wh-HB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 12:03:31 -0500 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 12:03:26 -0500 From: Luiz Capitulino Message-ID: <20131209120326.466d2429@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20131209164850.GG3364@irqsave.net> 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> <20131209114109.1c4a8d5f@redhat.com> <20131209164850.GG3364@irqsave.net> 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: =?UTF-8?B?QmVub8OudA==?= Canet Cc: Kevin Wolf , famz@redhat.com, jcody@redhat.com, armbru@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 17:48:50 +0100 Beno=C3=AEt Canet wrote: > Le Monday 09 Dec 2013 =C3=A0 11:41:09 (-0500), Luiz Capitulino a =C3=A9cr= it : > > On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 17:23:09 +0100 > > Kevin Wolf wrote: > >=20 > > > > > I'm leaning slightly towards the approach that Beno=C3=AEt took, = if only 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 t= he > > > > > 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. > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > 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). > >=20 >=20 > It took me one year to go from the block filters and block backend > requirement to the state where my customer allows me to work on block fil= ters. >=20 > Now if we add to this the new requirement of block API 2.0 I think I will= soon > have time to concentrate myself on non qemu projects :( I don't think it would be something major as far as code is concerned. What can take a lot of time and energy is to define the API. The QMP commands implementation would probably be a wrapper around a single (or a set of) block functions. Again, I can live with what I suggested because I find it simpler than your original proposal: no existing field is changed, only one field is added, and clients can happily omit it if they don't know what it's about.