BALATON Zoltan <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, 10 Nov 2025, Clément Chigot wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 11:07 AM Markus Armbruster <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Clément Chigot <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>>> This option tells whether a hard disk should be partitioned or not. It >>>> defaults to true and have the prime effect of preventing a master boot >>>> record (MBR) to be initialized. >>>> >>>> This is useful as some operating system (QNX, Rtems) don't >>>> recognized FAT mounted disks (especially SD cards) if a MBR is present. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Clément Chigot <[email protected]> >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>> diff --git a/qapi/block-core.json b/qapi/block-core.json >>>> index b82af74256..8a479ba090 100644 >>>> --- a/qapi/block-core.json >>>> +++ b/qapi/block-core.json >>>> @@ -3464,8 +3464,8 @@ >>>> # >>>> # @fat-type: FAT type: 12, 16 or 32 >>>> # >>>> -# @floppy: whether to export a floppy image (true) or partitioned hard >>>> -# disk (false; default) >>>> +# @floppy: whether to export a floppy image (true) or hard disk >>>> +# (false; default) >>>> # >>>> # @label: set the volume label, limited to 11 bytes. FAT16 and FAT32 >>>> # traditionally have some restrictions on labels, which are >>>> @@ -3474,11 +3474,15 @@ >>>> # >>>> # @rw: whether to allow write operations (default: false) >>>> # >>>> +# @partitioned: whether a hard disk will be partitioned >>> >>> How does "partitioned" combine with "floppy": true? >>> >>> Is it silently ignored? >>> >>> Is it an error if present? >>> >>> Is it an error if true? >>> >>> Does it add a partition table if true? >>> >>>> +# (default: true) >>> >>> Hmm, this suggests it's silently ignored. >>> >>> Silently ignoring nonsensical configuration is usually a bad idea. >> >> True, but that would mean "unpartitioned" must always be passed when >> "floppy" is requested. That would make such command lines a bit more >> verbose, but otherwise I don't think there is any issue to that. >> >> Note that I didn't add "partition" as a keyword in the command line. >> Currently, it's either the default (thus partitioned) or >> "unpartitioned" being requested. Do you think it makes sense to add it >> as well, even if it's redundant ? >> >>>> +# (since 10.2) >>>> +# >>> >>> Not sure I like "partitioned". Is a disk with an MBR and a partition >>> table contraining a single partition partitioned? Call it "mbr"? >> >> It used to be called "mbr/no-mbr" but Kevin suggested renaming it in >> V1. Honestly I'm fine with both options: >> - Technically, the option prevents MBR which has a side effect for >> preventing partition tables
Yes, because the partition table is part of the MBR. I'd rather name the option after the entire thing it controls, not one of its parts. >> - Even it has a single partition, I think it makes sense to call a >> disk "partitioned" as long as it has a partition table >> >> But I'm not that familiar with disk formats, etc. I'll let you decide >> with Kevin, which one you prefer. Kevin is the maintainer, I just serve as advisor here. > I'd also vote for mbr or similar shorter name; unpartitioned is awkward to > type out in a command line. Maybe it can default to false for floppy and true > for disk to preserve current behaviour but allow controlling it. I'm not a fan of conditional defaults, but I think it's better than a nonsensical default that gets ignored. [...]
