From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=45388 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OGveJ-0002fn-08
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 May 2010 11:02:32 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1OGveG-0004iI-G8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 May 2010 11:02:30 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51931)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1OGveG-0004i0-5l
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 May 2010 11:02:28 -0400
Message-ID: <4BFBE677.9060701@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 18:02:15 +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>
	<4BFBB3C1.9020905@redhat.com> <4BFBCFAC.9070807@codemonkey.ws>
	<4BFBD63D.5040900@redhat.com> <4BFBD6D4.2040707@redhat.com>
	<4BFBD8C2.1010705@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <4BFBD8C2.1010705@codemonkey.ws>
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: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, 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 05:03 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> 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.

I meant a random untagged qemu.git snapshot.  Do we guarantee anything 
about it, except that it's likely to be broken?

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