From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54626) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bLSb4-0003tg-TO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2016 06:01:24 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bLSb3-0007fR-3f for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2016 06:01:21 -0400 Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 12:01:12 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20160708100112.GH14684@noname.redhat.com> References: <1467893497-2434-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> <1467893497-2434-2-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> <577EDB7D.6030102@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <577EDB7D.6030102@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 01/11] block: Accept node-name for block-stream List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: qemu-block@nongnu.org, mreitz@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org --dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am 08.07.2016 um 00:45 hat Eric Blake geschrieben: > On 07/07/2016 06:11 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > In order to remove the necessity to use BlockBackend names in the > > external API, we want to allow node-names everywhere. This converts > > block-stream to accept a node-name without lifting the restriction that > > we're operating at a root node. > >=20 > > In case of an invalid device name, the command returns the GenericError > > error class now instead of DeviceNotFound, because this is what > > qmp_get_root_bs() returns. > >=20 > > Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf > > --- > > blockdev.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++------------ > > qapi/block-core.json | 5 +---- > > qmp-commands.hx | 2 +- > > tests/qemu-iotests/030 | 2 +- > > 4 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > >=20 >=20 > The interface change looks okay; but due to Berto's comments, I'm not > sure it is worth giving R-b yet if you plan on changing the check for > whether a node name properly qualifies as a root name. Initially I intended to address the comment with some change, but since I realised that you already can put a BB everywhere and therefore this doesn't protect anything against intentional actions anyway, I'm not so sure any more. Do you have an opintion on this? More input would be appreciated. Kevin --dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJXf3noAAoJEH8JsnLIjy/WfvEQAIast4wri9lRnNhuBx1Hv3Rb 6o7SSBaGMs+iNclFdH0W6eiF4LfoFzz9ckKwQsZ2oRiLdNqOT1wLWGRVU3tM2DQu 1yO8PKyGU4P3l5TaWWixA5AgkePNGi2nt63xto5UXWeC59fEduWoR8nBtw//UjTD +ESp78uxpVGHKgT2L9uMUD5MP5beifkSR2sEjWIScoixP0OEp/WZZb9m/iqjyaM0 6SC+lIQKok6h2DAdhhSx73lkl4xdmiTQMiHLQvMen9/X0XDCj7Wl1u48nAAvvyYR 4GQ59juC/HwOG+ik0kvfpHzaFp2bSIVoOwrTtdnYs0OvrUnr1IZqAzpHvpcqEBiU jV8d/0ZWIP4zhFui2H4tDfzKWKV5HJU7DKJMfP4tnWBzfH/l03Rx0LuFBWxnDquW YrIHRaMbQ0J6NW3uDJIcTGVSGcIRvs2la8MixDRKWAdkeheiyTWN478pcNkEMWx/ u/Yw62pTLo6BqdzSF/NKLeBwhJhjCORM9Rc2STZRdnAgj1ZS3tzREf1ngoDHpEa+ Jj97FAmUVB15s5IhUz5H+ErwCBzp6KDaugcAYVMwv8j5vZC6zI4eiL2MbxvRIkqL ypawm8tJCaYITk93fx9EnBDBvnpv2cZUeez/jJ/zqwHWsa+pLxpH+qnQJHz8GTpv Ax8oUI9/KCm7W9NshR2O =pIK2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx--