From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38299)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1VqPWJ-0008Ll-FH
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:46:53 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1VqPWD-00042o-H9
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:46:47 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50049)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1VqPWD-00042a-7o
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:46:41 -0500
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:16:13 -0500
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20131210101613.7a38dadc@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20131210142507.GE3656@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>
	<20131209114109.1c4a8d5f@redhat.com>
	<20131210095750.GC3656@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com>
	<20131210090620.4bc73895@redhat.com>
	<20131210142507.GE3656@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: <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: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Cc: famz@redhat.com, =?UTF-8?B?QmVub8OudA==?= Canet <benoit@irqsave.net>, jcody@redhat.com, armbru@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com

On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:25:07 +0100
Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> wrote:

> My objection to your approach is strong because Beno=C3=AEt already sent =
an
> alternative which I believe is less worse because with it, arguments
> actually mean what their names tell instead of having additional bools
> for "oh, and I said A, but I didn't mean it, I really want B".

Current proposal:

{ 'command': 'block_passwd', 'data': {'*device': 'str',
                                      '*node-name': 'str', 'password': 'str=
'} }

When I look at it, I ask myself:

 - What happens when device=3DNULL?

 - What happens when node-name=3DNULL?

 - What happens when device=3DNULL and node-name=3DNULL?

 - What happens when device !=3D NULL and node-node !=3D NULL?

 - What happens when device !=3D NULL but node-node=3DNULL?

 - What happens when device=3DNULL but node-node !=3D NULL?

My proposal:

{ 'command': 'block_passwd', 'data': {'device': 'str',
                                      '*device-is-node': 'bool', 'password'=
: 'str'} }

 - What happens when device-is-node=3DNULL?

 - What happens when device-is-node !=3D NULL?

PS: I'm not NACKing anything. My review to this series started with a
    "what about" question. I did voice my objections against this
    proposal, but didn't NACK it. Besides you're a maintainer as much
    as I am, so I could NACK this as much as you could push this
    through your tree ignoring review.