Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> writes: > Paolo asked me to write such a driver based on his textual specification > alone. The first patch captures his email in full, the rest re-quotes > parts that are being implemented. > > The tree compiles at each patch. The series passes "make check-block". > > "block/raw.c" is not removed because I wanted to keep it out of my > series and out of my brain. > > Disclaimer: I couldn't care less if the raw block driver was public > domain or AGPLv3+, as long as it qualifies as free software. I'm only > trying to do what Paolo asked of me.
Generally speaking, rewriting parts of QEMU to be !GPL is something I would strongly, strongly oppose. I believe that Paolo had a good reason for this though. I suppose the logic is that we want to expose a "libqemublock" that libvirt can use such that it can stop parsing qcow2 files. Now libvirt just needs LGPLv2+, right? Is the JSON mode of qemu-img info not sufficient for libvirt's purposes? Is there additional logic behind having a libqemublock? Regards, Anthony Liguori > > Laszlo Ersek (7): > add skeleton for BSD licensed "raw" BlockDriver > raw_bsd: emit debug events in bdrv_co_readv() and bdrv_co_writev() > raw_bsd: add raw_create() > raw_bsd: introduce "special members" > raw_bsd: add raw_create_options > raw_bsd: register bdrv_raw > switch raw block driver from "raw.o" to "raw_bsd.o" > > block/Makefile.objs | 2 +- > block/raw_bsd.c | 186 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 187 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 block/raw_bsd.c
