From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=51765 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OGsGs-0003Aw-Vs
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 May 2010 07:26:07 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1OGsGq-0002TT-Sg
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 May 2010 07:26:06 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:48885)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1OGsGq-0002TB-Le
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 May 2010 07:26:04 -0400
Message-ID: <4BFBB3C1.9020905@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 14:25:53 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 1/1] ceph/rbd block driver for qemu-kvm
References: <20100519192222.GD61706@ncolin.muc.de>		<AANLkTimXqk7oa4mtcoHX1rKWzi_Nccb0FJu_QDtwJ-sP@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTil-aogxdnMallKTDo1bKXj6QmaU0ojJuiZgXaqC@mail.gmail.com>	<4BF5A9D2.5080609@codemonkey.ws>
	<4BF91937.2070801@redhat.com> <4BFBAE46.5050801@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BFBAE46.5050801@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; 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.nongnu.org/archive/html/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: kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, Christian Brunner <chb@muc.de>

On 05/25/2010 02:02 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>
>>
>>> So could we not standardize a protocol for this that both sheepdog and
>>> ceph could implement?
>>>        
>> The protocol already exists, nbd.  It doesn't support snapshotting etc.
>> but we could extend it.
>>
>> But IMO what's needed is a plugin API for the block layer.
>>      
> What would it buy us, apart from more downstreams and having to maintain
> a stable API and ABI?

Currently if someone wants to add a new block format, they have to 
upstream it and wait for a new qemu to be released.  With a plugin API, 
they can add a new block format to an existing, supported qemu.

> Hiding block drivers somewhere else doesn't make
> them stop existing, they just might not be properly integrated, but
> rather hacked in to fit that limited stable API.
>    

They would hack it to fit the current API, and hack the API in qemu.git 
to fit their requirements for the next release.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function