Le Monday 27 Jan 2014 à 20:11:59 (+0100), Max Reitz a écrit : > On 27.01.2014 15:36, Benoît Canet wrote: > >Le Friday 24 Jan 2014 à 15:54:39 (+0100), Max Reitz a écrit : > >>On 24.01.2014 15:48, Kevin Wolf wrote: > >>>Am 24.01.2014 um 14:37 hat Max Reitz geschrieben: > >>>>On 24.01.2014 14:26, Kevin Wolf wrote: > >>>>>Am 23.01.2014 um 21:31 hat Benoît Canet geschrieben: > >>>>>>Signed-off-by: Benoit Canet <ben...@irqsave.net> > >>>>>>--- > >>>>>> block.c | 6 +++--- > >>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >>>>>I'm not going to merge this one yet. It breaks qemu-iotests case 071, > >>>>>which would have to be adapted. > >>>>> > >>>>>However, first of all I'd like to hear the opinions of at least Eric and > >>>>>Max on what BlockRef should really refer to. I think node names make > >>>>>most sense, but perhaps it's a bit inconvenient and the command line > >>>>>should default to node-name = id when id is set, but node-name isn't? > >>>>The QAPI schema is pretty clear about this: “references the ID of an > >>>>existing block device.” > >>>Sure, that's because I wrote that text before we had a node name. > >>> > >>>However, in 1.7 references didn't work yet, so we still have all freedom > >>>to change the interface as we like. > >>Yes, that's right. > >> > >>>>However, if the ID cannot be found, I think > >>>>we should interpret it as a reference to the node name. > >>>> > >>>>Therefore, I'd first try bdrv_find() and if that returns NULL, try > >>>>again with bdrv_find_node(). > >>>I think I would prefer to avoid such ambiguities. Otherwise a management > >>>tool that wants to use the node name needs to check first if it's not > >>>already used as a device name somewhere else and would therefore operate > >>>on the wrong device. > >>> > >>>On the other hand, a management tool using the same names for devices > >>>and nodes just gets what it deserves. > >>> > >>>Perhaps we should use a common namespace for both, i.e. you get an error > >>>if you try to assign a node name that is already a device name and vice > >>>versa? > >>This is what I would go for. However, then I don't really know why > >>we should separate the ID and the node name in the first place > >>(although that's probably because I haven't followed the discussion > >>around node names). > >> > >>Max > >Ping, > > > >I still want to make quorum merge. > >What should be done for the references ? > > > >Best regards > > > >Benoît > > My only problem is that I don't really know what IDs are for, then. ;-) >
>From the understanding I have ID are for block backend top level bds and node-name naming all the bds burried in the graph. So my personal opinion would be to relax the constraint on bdrv_lookup_bs and use it for references. Kevin && Max: what do you think of this scheme ? Best regards Benoît > Currently, I think using the node name is probably (more) correct > and it can't hurt anyone; thus, I'm okay with this patch. > > Max
