From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NUL0y-00076N-Qk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:13:04 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NUL0t-00073P-6t for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:13:03 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=46226 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NUL0s-000737-W3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:12:59 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:23563) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NUL0s-0005Jt-Fg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:12:58 -0500 Message-ID: <4B4B31A8.6010405@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:11:52 +0100 From: Kevin Wolf MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] dmg: fix ->open failure References: <20100111130654.GA24241@lst.de> <4B4B2B1F.1090203@redhat.com> <20100111134610.GA27135@lst.de> <4B4B2E00.90002@redhat.com> <20100111140000.GA28467@lst.de> In-Reply-To: <20100111140000.GA28467@lst.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Am 11.01.2010 15:00, schrieb Christoph Hellwig: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 02:56:16PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> Are you going to propose a cleaner patch? I have currently some other >> bugs to do first, but I was certainly planning to do so. However, I'll >> happily leave it to you if you have the time right now. > > I'm looking into doing it in the generic block layer, yes. More or less the same hack, just in cleaner? Or trying to fundamentally change things? I think you haven't answered yet to what I said in the thread of my original hack. I'm quoting it here for convenience: > Ok, if you start talking about layering, we can have a fundamental > discussion on this topic and why the layering is broken anyway. > Logically, we have image formats like qcow2, VMDK and raw, and they are > stored in files, on CD-ROMs or general block devices. From a layering > perspective, it is wrong to include the latter in the raw format driver > in the first place. Actually, I think the differentiation between raw files and host_* is at the same level as protocols are. Probably they should be implemented very similarly. Do you think it's possible/worth the effort to try putting things straight here? Kevin