From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43935) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YPshH-000844-Au for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 08:05:16 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YPshC-00025r-Bt for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 08:05:15 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39944) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YPshC-00025l-5U for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 08:05:10 -0500 Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:04:26 +0100 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20150223130426.GD4302@noname.str.redhat.com> References: <49b845c4a362ffd64ec78bbe0b165cd7addd2a4b.1424439295.git.berto@igalia.com> <54E7B74C.7010307@redhat.com> <20150223122308.GA11820@igalia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150223122308.GA11820@igalia.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/3] block: Add QMP support for streaming to an intermediate layer List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alberto Garcia Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , armbru@redhat.com Am 23.02.2015 um 13:23 hat Alberto Garcia geschrieben: > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 03:38:04PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote: > > > > + if (has_top) { > > > + top_bs = bdrv_find_backing_image(bs, top); > > > + if (top_bs == NULL) { > > > + error_set(errp, QERR_TOP_NOT_FOUND, top); > > > + goto out; > > > + } > > > > If I understand correctly, bdrv_find_backing_image has problems for > > backing nodes that don't have a file name. Given our shift towards > > node names, I think we really want to target node names rather than > > file names when specifying which node we will use as the top bound > > receiving the stream operations. > > Sure I can change that, but note that the 'base' parameter also > receives a file name and uses bdrv_find_backing_image, so I guess it > makes sense to change it in both sides. Yes, using the file name for identifying nodes was a mistake. We're going to replace all occurrences of it sooner or later. Not sure if someone is actively working on this currently - Markus? For your patch series, I think it's good enough to use node names for the new parameter. Converting old parameters is a separate issue. Kevin