On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 05:39:52 -0600
Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 10/02/2012 03:00 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Il 02/10/2012 01:56, Eric Blake ha scritto:
> >> On 10/01/2012 08:52 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>
> >>> ---
>
> >>> +#
> >>> +# @port: port part of the address, or lowest port if @to is present
> >>> +#
> >>> +# @to: highest port to try
> >>> +#
>
> >>> +{ 'type': 'IPSocketAddress',
> >>> + 'data': {
> >>> + 'host': 'str',
> >>> + 'port': 'str',
> >>> + '*to': 'uint16',
> >>
> >> I still think it's a bit weird to have:
> >>
> >> 'host':'localhost', 'port':'1000', 'to':1001
> >>
> >> for a port range, all because of the possibility of named ports; should
> >> '*to' be a 'str' if only for symmetry in the output? But it's
> >> bike-shedding, so I'll live with whatever works (that is, I'm not
> >> requesting a v3 on this patch).
> >
> > Would it be better if I changed 'to' to 'count'?
>
> That does look a little better:
>
> 'host':'localhost', 'port':'1000', 'count':2
>
> for the 2-port range 1000-1001. But it's all the same information, so
> I'm not strongly tied to any particular representation, as long as
> libvirt can parse it when querying and produce it when starting NBD.
Wouldn't it be cleaner to pass a list of port numbers? We could have:
*port-list: [ 'int' ]
*service: 'str'
Or, we could make this an union.
