From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MLdS7-0001mw-GW
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:32:51 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MLdS2-0001fR-QP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:32:50 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=56038 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MLdS2-0001fG-DQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:32:46 -0400
Received: from mail-ew0-f211.google.com ([209.85.219.211]:65003)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1MLdS1-0007f0-UG
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:32:46 -0400
Received: by ewy7 with SMTP id 7so155615ewy.34
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 06:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4A4A13F7.8050904@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:32:39 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Warn if a qcow (not qcow2) file is opened
References: <1246284289-25394-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com>
	<4A49CE00.4090504@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A49CE00.4090504@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Avi Kivity schrieb:
>   
>> The qcow block driver format is no longer maintained and likely contains
>> serious data corruptors.  Urge users to stay away for it, and advertise
>> the new and improved replacement.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
>>     
>
> vvfat is using qcow internally, so the warning will appear there, too.
> Not that warning against vvfat would be a bad thing, but this error
> message could be confusing.
>
> Maybe we're lucky enough and vvfat survives a s/qcow/qcow2/, but I
> really never wanted to touch that code...
>   

I'm not sure how I feel about this.  Can we prove qcow is broken?  Is it 
only broken for writes and not reads?

If we're printing a warning, does that mean we want to deprecate qcow 
and eventually remove it (or remove write support, at least)?

Regards,

Anthony Liguori