From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MLdoB-0001oe-Uj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:55:40 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MLdo7-0001hW-3M for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:55:39 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=35620 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MLdo6-0001hK-VG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:55:35 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:40764) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MLdo6-000472-GH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:55:34 -0400 Message-ID: <4A4A19B7.3070600@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:57:11 +0300 From: Avi Kivity 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> <4A4A13F7.8050904@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <4A4A13F7.8050904@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Kevin Wolf , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org On 06/30/2009 04:32 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > 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 The qcow block driver format is no longer maintained and likely 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 >> >> 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? Well, Kevin posted a patch, so it is. It's definitely unmaintained. Given it's a qemu native format, there is no interoperability value except with old qemu versions. > > If we're printing a warning, does that mean we want to deprecate qcow > and eventually remove it (or remove write support, at least)? Yes. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function