From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48891) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bwU4W-0005nA-Pz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 09:04:53 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bwU4R-00014F-5A for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 09:04:48 -0400 Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:04:29 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20161018130429.GG4706@noname.str.redhat.com> References: <20161014154639.GF3482@stefanha-x1.localdomain> <98a190a0-007b-3a83-8b31-f24de6a95335@redhat.com> <61e334e1-bfe5-7907-cad1-a490ec10f8da@kamp.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] block/nfs: Fine grained runtime options in nfs List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Ashijeet Acharya Cc: Peter Lieven , Eric Blake , Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-block@nongnu.org, jcody@redhat.com, QEMU Developers , Max Reitz Am 18.10.2016 um 14:46 hat Ashijeet Acharya geschrieben: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Peter Lieven wrote: > > Am 17.10.2016 um 21:34 schrieb Ashijeet Acharya: > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:59 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > >>> > >>> On 10/17/2016 01:00 PM, Ashijeet Acharya wrote: > >>> > >>>> One more relatively easy question though, will we include @port as an > >>>> option in runtime_opts while converting NFS to use several > >>>> runtime_opts? The reason I ask this because the uri syntax for NFS in > >>>> QEMU looks like this: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> nfs:////[?param=value[¶m2=value2[&...]]] > >>> > >>> It's actually nfs://[:port]/... > >>> > >>> so the URI syntax already supports port. > >> > >> But the commit message which added support for NFS had the uri which I > >> mentioned above and the code for NFS does not make use of 'port' > >> anywhere either, which is why I am a bit confused. > > > > > > Hi Aschijeet, > > > > don't worry there is no port number when connecting to an NFS server. > > The portmapper always listens on port 111. So theoretically we could > > specifiy a port in the URL but it is ignored. > > So that means I will be including 'port' in runtime_opts and then just > ignoring any value that comes through it? No, if there is nothing to configure there, leave it out. Adding an option that doesn't do anything is not very useful. Kevin