Am 26.10.2016 um 19:23 hat Alberto Garcia geschrieben: > On Wed 26 Oct 2016 04:58:00 PM CEST, Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Am 26.10.2016 um 12:29 hat Alberto Garcia geschrieben: > >> This patch makes the 'device' parameter of the 'block-stream' command > >> accept a node name that is not a root node. > >> > >> In addition to that, operation blockers will be checked in all > >> intermediate nodes between the top and the base node. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Alberto Garcia <be...@igalia.com> > > > >> --- a/qapi/block-core.json > >> +++ b/qapi/block-core.json > >> @@ -1464,6 +1464,10 @@ > >> # with query-block-jobs. The operation can be stopped before it has > >> completed > >> # using the block-job-cancel command. > >> # > >> +# The node that receives the data is called the top image, can be located > >> in > >> +# any part of the chain (but always above the base image; see below) and > >> can be > >> +# specified using its device or node name. > >> +# > >> # If a base file is specified then sectors are not copied from that base > >> file and > >> # its backing chain. When streaming completes the image file will have > >> the base > >> # file as its backing file. This can be used to stream a subset of the > >> backing > >> @@ -1475,12 +1479,12 @@ > >> # @job-id: #optional identifier for the newly-created block job. If > >> # omitted, the device name will be used. (Since 2.7) > >> # > >> -# @device: the device name or node-name of a root node > >> +# @device: the device or node name of the top image > >> # > >> # @base: #optional the common backing file name > >> # > >> -# @backing-file: #optional The backing file string to write into the > >> active > >> -# layer. This filename is not validated. > >> +# @backing-file: #optional The backing file string to write into the top > >> +# image. This filename is not validated. > >> # > >> # If a pathname string is such that it cannot be > >> # resolved by QEMU, that means that subsequent > >> QMP or > > > > As we discussed in v10, this is not discoverable through > > introspection. You added patch 18 which introduces a base-node option > > and can serve as a witness for the changed semantics, which is > > good. Should this be documented here? > > In the commit message I don't see why not, but in the JSON file? > > "This feature was added together with the base-node parameter" ?
Eric may have a better suggestion for the wording, but maybe something like this: "Presence of this feature can't directly be tested with introspection; check for the presence of base-node instead as a witness for it." Kevin
