Am 24.01.2014 um 14:37 hat Max Reitz geschrieben: > On 24.01.2014 14:26, Kevin Wolf wrote: > >Am 23.01.2014 um 21:31 hat Benoît Canet geschrieben: > >>Signed-off-by: Benoit Canet <ben...@irqsave.net> > >>--- > >> block.c | 6 +++--- > >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >I'm not going to merge this one yet. It breaks qemu-iotests case 071, > >which would have to be adapted. > > > >However, first of all I'd like to hear the opinions of at least Eric and > >Max on what BlockRef should really refer to. I think node names make > >most sense, but perhaps it's a bit inconvenient and the command line > >should default to node-name = id when id is set, but node-name isn't? > > The QAPI schema is pretty clear about this: “references the ID of an > existing block device.”
Sure, that's because I wrote that text before we had a node name. However, in 1.7 references didn't work yet, so we still have all freedom to change the interface as we like. > However, if the ID cannot be found, I think > we should interpret it as a reference to the node name. > > Therefore, I'd first try bdrv_find() and if that returns NULL, try > again with bdrv_find_node(). I think I would prefer to avoid such ambiguities. Otherwise a management tool that wants to use the node name needs to check first if it's not already used as a device name somewhere else and would therefore operate on the wrong device. On the other hand, a management tool using the same names for devices and nodes just gets what it deserves. Perhaps we should use a common namespace for both, i.e. you get an error if you try to assign a node name that is already a device name and vice versa? Kevin
