From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58893) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T9XTB-0002Yw-CU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 04:29:50 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T9XT5-0006Am-EB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 04:29:49 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:11033) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T9XT5-0006Ae-5E for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 04:29:43 -0400 Message-ID: <50485EF0.70505@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:29:36 +0300 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20120809130010.GA7960@in.ibm.com> <20120809130216.GC7960@in.ibm.com> <5028F815.40309@redhat.com> <20120814043801.GB24944@in.ibm.com> <502A0C66.3060107@redhat.com> <20120814093430.GE24944@in.ibm.com> <502A2140.9050703@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <502A2140.9050703@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v6 2/2] block: Support GlusterFS as a QEMU block backend List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: Anthony Liguori , Anand Avati , Stefan Hajnoczi , Vijay Bellur , Amar Tumballi , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Blue Swirl , bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Paolo Bonzini On 08/14/2012 12:58 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > >> While we are at this, let me bring out another issue. Gluster supports 3 >> transport types: >> >> - socket in which case the server will be hostname, ipv4 or ipv4 address. >> - rdma in which case server will be interpreted similar to socket. >> - unix in which case server will be a path to unix domain socket and this >> will look like any other filesystem path. (Eg. /tmp/glusterd.socket) >> >> I don't think we can fit 'unix' within the standard URI scheme (RFC 3986) >> easily, but I am planning to specify the 'unix' transport as below: >> >> gluster://[/path/to/unix/domain/socket]/volname/image?transport=unix >> >> i,e., I am asking the user to put the unix domain socket path within >> square brackets when transport type is unix. >> >> Do you think this is fine ? > > Never saw something like this before, but it does seem reasonable to me. > Excludes ] from the valid characters in the file name of the socket, but > that shouldn't be a problem in practice. Bikeshedding, but I prefer gluster:///path/to/unix/domain/socket:/volname/image?transport=unix as being more similar to file://, or even gluster:///path/to/unix/domain/socket/volname/image?transport=unix with the last two components implied to be part of the payload, not the path. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function