From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:39414)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1SwYtP-0007Mi-Bz
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:23:16 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1SwYtJ-0000P5-Kq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:23:15 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:65168)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1SwYtJ-0000Ow-CC
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:23:09 -0400
Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q71DN8cU015028
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:23:08 -0400
Message-ID: <50192DBA.1050104@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:23:06 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <490157254.6767622.1343815423950.JavaMail.root@redhat.com>
	<50192D3F.7010303@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <50192D3F.7010303@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH][RFC] Add compare subcommand for qemu-img
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/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: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Cc: Miroslav Rezanina <mrezanin@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Il 01/08/2012 15:21, Eric Blake ha scritto:
>> > +++ b/qemu-img.c
>> > @@ -96,7 +96,9 @@ static void help(void)
>> >             "  '-a' applies a snapshot (revert disk to saved state)\n"
>> >             "  '-c' creates a snapshot\n"
>> >             "  '-d' deletes a snapshot\n"
>> > -           "  '-l' lists all snapshots in the given image\n";
>> > +           "  '-l' lists all snapshots in the given image\n"
>> > +           "Parameters to compare subcommand:\n"
>> > +           "  '-g' Second image format (in case it differs from first image)\n";
> As written, this sounds like:
> 
> No -f, no -g => probe both
> -f, no -g => -f applies to both
> no -f, -g => probe first, use -g for second
> -f, -g => use given formats for both
> 
> Is that really what you meant, or do we actually get:
> 
> -f, no -g => -f applies to first, probe second
> 
> I think both interpretations could make sense, but I'd prefer having the
> omission of -g imply probing the second file type regardless of the
> presence or absence of -f, for consistency.

+1

Paolo