On 8/8/07, Anthony Liguori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Avi Kivity wrote: > > 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. > >> > >> > > > > Are all the users' images open for breakage too? > > > > FWIW, you can extended the header without causing a breakage. Just bump > the version, add the field, and add appropriate code. Of course, this > is technically qcow v3 but it's a good opportunity to make things a bit > sanier such that instead of check version == QCOW_VERSION that version > >= QCOW_VERSION.
I think that for now we can try the snapshot-based approach, as it is the least intrusive one. I wouldn't push for a format change just with this minor feature. However, I would be glad to convert our code if the general consensus was that we need a new format. Patches for our solution follow. They are against: 5b16d32e3785274310e9e1970f4221b4966c5474 Which was userspace a few minutes ago. Cheers, Jorge ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
