From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53470) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zlfwp-0004Sn-P6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 12:27:40 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zlfwo-0004RM-SL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 12:27:39 -0400 References: <1442907862-21376-1-git-send-email-wency@cn.fujitsu.com> <1442907862-21376-4-git-send-email-wency@cn.fujitsu.com> <56157599.9020608@redhat.com> From: Max Reitz Message-ID: <561BDF6F.7030502@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 18:27:27 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56157599.9020608@redhat.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="t70sG2HC5fH03a7PwWb6gwV8bpbrg99EG" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [PATCH v5 3/4] qmp: add monitor command to add/remove a child List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Wen Congyang , qemu devel , Eric Blake , Markus Armbruster , Alberto Garcia , Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: Kevin Wolf , zhanghailiang , qemu block , Jiang Yunhong , Dong Eddie , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , Gonglei , Yang Hongyang This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --t70sG2HC5fH03a7PwWb6gwV8bpbrg99EG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 07.10.2015 21:42, Max Reitz wrote: > On 22.09.2015 09:44, Wen Congyang wrote: >> The new QMP command name is x-blockdev-child-add, and x-blockdev-child= -del. >> It justs for adding/removing quorum's child now, and don't support all= >> kinds of children, >=20 > It does support all kinds of children for quorum, doesn't it? >=20 >> nor all block drivers. So it is experimental now. >=20 > Well, that is not really a reason why we would have to make it > experimental. For instance, blockdev-add (although some might argue it > actually is experimental...) doesn't support all block drivers either. OK, after a rather long discussion, my opinion has changed. Adding them as experimental interfaces is good (although the reason noted here is not exactly what I feel is the reason that came out in the discussion). Thanks to everyone who argued with me! I took a good chunk of your time, and I'll have you know that I'm grateful for it. Max --t70sG2HC5fH03a7PwWb6gwV8bpbrg99EG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWG99vAAoJEDuxQgLoOKytxaMH/A2tz6TyTa8qoKPzeKhRJrHe cQg0RgVb3zc/vgqTxJT7fk9w5Ksn1JSpsvwaWXCoolATjEPu9rkjqGjRMsQYPo0D sA2geidIRv9xww/ZpZCbPY442oJ1xM5yYGTAqumLTe7X5dgGvRj1sOZRC8sYJkUY wTg853VV28EPIOcJoNXNftomnZh9BhXBon4VIEvOPniK+D8HiR/0mHq6fr3rJIHZ skotSDh/d50qn1Nu2miaHlEOlVfUBkbvBC+i95qZ7oxKWv6l7smBWGTlGNNng4NJ 1Zhr3PfYP47pXB+kDymE9reeszs5WhE762e1o2JIGGlnQHemOOQla5lv4OCaPD4= =QwCk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --t70sG2HC5fH03a7PwWb6gwV8bpbrg99EG--