From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43169 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OQj0i-00009e-8G
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:34:09 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1OQj0h-0000fU-6g
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:34:08 -0400
Received: from mail-iw0-f173.google.com ([209.85.214.173]:32897)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1OQj0h-0000f7-3u
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:34:07 -0400
Received: by iwn10 with SMTP id 10so1163059iwn.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 08:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4C1F866A.7040708@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:34:02 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <m3ocf8ts1y.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
	<4C1DF2C1.5040505@redhat.com> <4C1F2093.3060807@redhat.com>
	<4C1F6482.7020406@codemonkey.ws> <4C1F6973.5020003@redhat.com>
	<4C1F6B36.8070508@codemonkey.ws> <4C1F70AF.8030108@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C1F70AF.8030108@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: block: format vs. protocol, and how they stack
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: Christoph Hellwig <chellwig@redhat.com>, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>

On 06/21/2010 09:01 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>
> No, what I'm saying is that even in your model
>
>    -blockdev format=qcow2,file=image.qcow2,id=blk1
>
> becomes qcow2 ->  file automatically, whereas
>
>    -blockdev format=vvfat,file=/tmp/dir/,id=blk1
>
> doesn't become vvfat ->  file, but stays just vvfat.
>    

I should say, that -blockdev format= vs. -blockdev transport= is 
definitely at a place where I don't care that much.

The things that I think are most important are:

1) That we have structured options that map well to config file without 
trickery to do nesting
2) That we don't automagically pass options through from the first layer 
down to subsequent layers

I think we're pretty much agreed here so while I think it's worth 
discussing whether format or transport should be exposed to the user, it 
shouldn't stop someone from coding something up and submitting it.  
Either way would be a vast improvement over what we have now.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori