On 8/6/07, Anthony Liguori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think adding annotations as snapshots is the right approach. I > think proper support should be added in the header. I wouldn't be too > concerned with breaking compatibility in qcow2. That's why it's qcow2 > and not just an updated version of qcow, qcow2 is still, AFAIK, open for > breakage.
I think I'm fine either way. Avi suggested the snapshot-based implementation so Laurent and I started working in that direction. We are now close to finishing the basic functionality. That's not to say that our solution should be accepted because it's almost ready. I would like to reach consensus for the way in which all this should be implemented. The advantage of the snapshot-based approach is, as it has already been discussed, its backwards-compatibility. I also think that it requires less changes to the source code. I am not very familiar with QEMU development so I'm not able to tell whether or not qcow2 is open for breakage. I guess we decided to play it safe. The header-based implementation would be conceptually easier of course. It would have the added benefit of not having to deal with the possible use of an empty snapshot (i.e., one with command line options) in loadvm. That's the only thing left to fix in our current implementation. As I said, I'm fine either way. I have a final tomorrow, but after that I will post our patches for review. Cheers, Jorge
