From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:57340) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qliu3-000460-1T for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:46:36 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qliu1-0007EX-Ud for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:46:35 -0400 Received: from e9.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.139]:43557) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qliu1-0007EK-RK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:46:33 -0400 Received: from d01relay07.pok.ibm.com (d01relay07.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.147]) by e9.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p6QEE2jL004134 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:14:02 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay07.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p6QEkVHX1560676 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:46:31 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p6QAkGhl012764 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:46:18 -0300 Message-ID: <4E2ED33F.8090305@us.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:46:23 -0400 From: Corey Bryant MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1311684710-27074-1-git-send-email-coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110726130211.GA2853@lst.de> <4E2EC9B6.8060105@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4E2EC9B6.8060105@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3] Add support for fd: protocol List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, libvir-list@redhat.com, Corey Bryant , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, tchicks@us.ibm.com, Christoph Hellwig On 07/26/2011 10:05 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 26.07.2011 15:02, schrieb Christoph Hellwig: >> > I have to say I really hate it. We've been working hard on getting rid >> > of special cases in the qemu block layer, and this sprinkles them all >> > over. I'd recommend to fix your security model instead. > I think the problem here is more with the implementation that with the > intention. > > I agree that you just can't do this. A patch adding support for a fd: > protocol should touch block/fd.c and nothing else. You can add some > supporting patches that extend the generic block layer to support e.g. > formats that can't reopen. However, if you touch the code of other block > drivers, you're doing it wrong. > > Kevin > > I'll look into this approach, but on the surface it seems like this could prevent a lot of code reuse in block/raw-posix.c. Regards, Corey