Anthony Liguori 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. >
This sounds much better. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
