From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IIC3F-00049I-0Z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 19:31:53 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IIC3B-000492-AN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 19:31:52 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIC3B-00048z-2o for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 19:31:49 -0400 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.180]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IIC39-000502-65 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 19:31:47 -0400 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k22so2128459waf for ; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:31:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <59abf66e0708061631v43a277d6g49e0c629b475c2d6@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 20:31:30 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Luc=E1ngeli_Obes?=" In-Reply-To: <46B780E6.8050305@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <59abf66e0707292040j11c8b981mf7f793258e874400@mail.gmail.com> <46B780E6.8050305@codemonkey.ws> Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [kvm-devel] Storing command line options in qcow2 images Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 8/6/07, Anthony Liguori wrote: > I don't think adding annotations as snapshots is the right approach. I > think proper support should be added in the header. I wouldn't be too > concerned with breaking compatibility in qcow2. That's why it's qcow2 > and not just an updated version of qcow, qcow2 is still, AFAIK, open for > breakage. I think I'm fine either way. Avi suggested the snapshot-based implementation so Laurent and I started working in that direction. We are now close to finishing the basic functionality. That's not to say that our solution should be accepted because it's almost ready. I would like to reach consensus for the way in which all this should be implemented. The advantage of the snapshot-based approach is, as it has already been discussed, its backwards-compatibility. I also think that it requires less changes to the source code. I am not very familiar with QEMU development so I'm not able to tell whether or not qcow2 is open for breakage. I guess we decided to play it safe. The header-based implementation would be conceptually easier of course. It would have the added benefit of not having to deal with the possible use of an empty snapshot (i.e., one with command line options) in loadvm. That's the only thing left to fix in our current implementation. As I said, I'm fine either way. I have a final tomorrow, but after that I will post our patches for review. Cheers, Jorge