On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 2:47 PM Clément Chigot <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 2:25 PM BALATON Zoltan <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Nov 2025, Clément Chigot wrote: > > > 1. "mbr" vs "partitioned". > > > I do think "partitioned" is clearer, a bit more casual friendly. "mbr" > > > requires knowledge about FAT format, while what's a partition should > > > be known by a wider audience. > > > Side note, in V3, I'll remove the "unpartitioned" keyword to simply > > > replace it by "partitoned=false" (I wasn't aware such an obvious > > > possibility was working...). So we might even call it > > > "partition/partitions=true|false". > > > > > > 2. The default value. Should it be "false" for @floppy ? > > > IMO, having a default value independent of other arguments is always > > > better. Hence, I'll push for keeping "partitioned=true" as the > > > default, and having users forcing "partitioned=false" for floppy (an > > > error being raised otherwise). As we'll probably change the default > > > behavior with floppy anyway (cf patch 2), I don't think it will hurt a > > > lot to make users passing a new flag. > > [...] > > 2. Having different defaults for floppy or disk would keep existing > > command lines working. Otherwise why not make partitioned=false the > > default and let users who need it set explicitly. That would also work for > > most cases without having to type out this option. > > Yes, I forgot about that one (though linked to patch 2). If we don't > change the default size of floppy, the existing command lines will > stay as is, hence introducing a new mandatory option is a bad idea. > Overall the tradeoff is "simple default CLI" vs "non-conditional > defaults". Both have pros and cons and I don't have a strong feeling > about which ones should be prefered. So, I'll let you, the > maintainers, decide which one is the best for QEMU, its block devices > and vvfat future ;)
@Kevin Wolf gentle ping as VVFAT maintainer. I'd like to have some insights about my 2 questions and the one raised by Zoltan. V3 doesn't have much modification yet apart from `fat-size` renamed in `fs-size` for patch 5, so I don't find it worth pushing it while these questions remain open. Thanks in advance. Clément > > Regards, > > BALATON Zoltan
