From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=59989 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OGujn-0002W0-OZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 May 2010 10:04:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OGujj-0007C4-5E for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 May 2010 10:04:07 -0400 Received: from mail-vw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.212.45]:62097) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OGujj-0007Bu-2g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 May 2010 10:04:03 -0400 Received: by vws6 with SMTP id 6so30603vws.4 for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 07:04:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BFBD8C2.1010705@codemonkey.ws> Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 09:03:46 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori 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> <4BF5A9D2.5080609@codemonkey.ws> <4BF91937.2070801@redhat.com> <4BFBAE46.5050801@redhat.com> <4BFBB3C1.9020905@redhat.com> <4BFBCFAC.9070807@codemonkey.ws> <4BFBD63D.5040900@redhat.com> <4BFBD6D4.2040707@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4BFBD6D4.2040707@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Avi Kivity Cc: Kevin Wolf , kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Blue Swirl , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, Christian Brunner On 05/25/2010 08:55 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 05/25/2010 04:53 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> >> I'm still not convinced that we need either. I share Christoph's concern >> that we would make our life harder for almost no gain. It's probably a >> very small group of users (if it exists at all) that wants to add new >> block drivers themselves, but at the same time can't run upstream qemu. >> > > The first part of your argument may be true, but the second isn't. No > user can run upstream qemu.git. It's not tested or supported, and has > no backwards compatibility guarantees. Yes, it does have backwards compatibility guarantees. Regards, Anthony Liguori