On 19/01/2016 17:44, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> > As a first reaction, I would really avoid magic unless the server
>> > provides a single exports. But even in that case, I would prefer to
>> > have some synchronization between the server and client command-line.
>> >
>> > Is an empty
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:30:35AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 19/01/2016 17:44, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >> > As a first reaction, I would really avoid magic unless the server
> >> > provides a single exports. But even in that case, I would prefer to
> >> > have some
The NBD client is currently only capable of using the new style
protocol negotiation if an explicit export name is provided.
This is a problem, because TLS support will require use of the
new style protocol in all cases, and we wish to keep the export
name as an optional request for backwards
On 19/01/2016 14:09, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> The NBD client is currently only capable of using the new style
> protocol negotiation if an explicit export name is provided.
> This is a problem, because TLS support will require use of the
> new style protocol in all cases, and we wish to keep
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 05:14:32PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 19/01/2016 14:09, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > The NBD client is currently only capable of using the new style
> > protocol negotiation if an explicit export name is provided.
> > This is a problem, because TLS support will
