Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com> writes: > So I guess it's my turn to give yet another opinion (or just something > in between of what has been already said). > > First, I'm fine with this patch, or at least the idea as there were > yet some quirks.
Yes, the patch has (fixable) issues. It's really just a sketch that happens to work in common cases :) > But I oppose turning the warning into an error eventually. I want to > be able to use -hda $filename and it should work. As Kevin said, a > warning alone will not help a lot, though. I don't know about that, I > think it should work. This warning should only appear when you're > using qemu directly because management tools should already use -drive > with format= or driver=; and if you're using qemu directly you should > be watching stderr. > > The only way I'd be fine with turning this into an error would be to > make an exception for -hda and the like. There were already plans of > introducing pseudo block drivers for format and protocol probing; if > we do that we can use those block drivers for -hda. We should still > emit the warning, but in my opinion it should never be an error with > -hda, -cdrom etc.. For me, this is not about backwards compatibility > but because I'm using -hda myself. Examples of usage that is just fine (no warning): * -hda test.qcow2 Fine as long as test.qcow2 is really qcow2 (as it should!), and either specifies a backing format (as it arguably should), or the backing file name is sane. * -hda disk.img Fine as long as disk.img is really a disk image (as it should). * -hda /dev/mapper/vg0-virtdisk Fine as long as the logical volume is raw. Not actually implemented in my patch, but it's easy enough to do. Can you give me a few examples from your usage that triggers the warning? [...]
