From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48898) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XlIgs-0003aZ-7Q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2014 09:33:12 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XlIgm-0007qX-2E for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2014 09:33:06 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44074) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XlIgl-0007qC-PM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2014 09:32:59 -0500 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sA3EWxBp016840 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 09:32:59 -0500 Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 15:32:57 +0100 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20141103143257.GF22901@noname.str.redhat.com> References: <1410411902-7104-1-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com> <1410411902-7104-2-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com> <20141031090106.GA4496@noname.str.redhat.com> <20141103014658.GA4915@fam-t430.nay.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141103014658.GA4915@fam-t430.nay.redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/3] qmp: Add command 'blockdev-backup' List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Fam Zheng Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , Markus Armbruster Am 03.11.2014 um 02:46 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben: > On Fri, 10/31 10:01, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > Am 11.09.2014 um 07:05 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben: > > > Similar to drive-backup, but this command uses a device id as target > > > instead of creating/opening an image file. > > > > > > Also add blocker on target bs, since the target is also a named device > > > now. > > > > > > Add check and report error for bs == target which became possible but is > > > an illegal case with introduction of blockdev-backup. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng > > > > > diff --git a/qapi/block-core.json b/qapi/block-core.json > > > index a685d02..b953c7b 100644 > > > --- a/qapi/block-core.json > > > +++ b/qapi/block-core.json > > > @@ -669,6 +669,40 @@ > > > '*on-target-error': 'BlockdevOnError' } } > > > > > > ## > > > +# @BlockdevBackup > > > +# > > > +# @device: the name of the device which should be copied. > > > +# > > > +# @target: the name of the backup target device. > > > > Both of these are either a BlockBackend ID or a BDS node-name, right? Do > > we have a standard way of expressing this? "name of the device" isn't > > quite clear. > > "name of the device" is used everywhere to document the "device" parameters in > our json schema. Since we have BlockBackend now, device-name and node-name > could be better distinguished. All we have to do is giving a beautiful name to > both. > > [This patch is only a copy&paste and is consistent with the rest part of the > file. So I'll leave it for now :] The rest of the file doesn't accept node names. But looking at your actual code, it seems that you are doing the same (by usign bdrv_find() instead of bdrv_lookup_bs()). Shouldn't a proper blockdev-* command accept node names as well? Kevin