Fam Zheng <f...@redhat.com> writes: > On Tue, 11/04 07:47, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Fam Zheng <f...@redhat.com> writes: >> >> > On Mon, 11/03 15:32, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> >> Am 03.11.2014 um 02:46 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben: >> >> > On Fri, 10/31 10:01, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> >> > > Am 11.09.2014 um 07:05 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben: >> >> > > > Similar to drive-backup, but this command uses a device id as target >> >> > > > instead of creating/opening an image file. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Also add blocker on target bs, since the target is also a >> >> > > > named device >> >> > > > now. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Add check and report error for bs == target which became >> >> > > > possible but is >> >> > > > an illegal case with introduction of blockdev-backup. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng <f...@redhat.com> >> >> > > >> >> > > > diff --git a/qapi/block-core.json b/qapi/block-core.json >> >> > > > index a685d02..b953c7b 100644 >> >> > > > --- a/qapi/block-core.json >> >> > > > +++ b/qapi/block-core.json >> >> > > > @@ -669,6 +669,40 @@ >> >> > > > '*on-target-error': 'BlockdevOnError' } } >> >> > > > >> >> > > > ## >> >> > > > +# @BlockdevBackup >> >> > > > +# >> >> > > > +# @device: the name of the device which should be copied. >> >> > > > +# >> >> > > > +# @target: the name of the backup target device. >> >> > > >> >> > > Both of these are either a BlockBackend ID or a BDS >> >> > > node-name, right? Do >> >> > > we have a standard way of expressing this? "name of the device" isn't >> >> > > quite clear. >> >> > >> >> > "name of the device" is used everywhere to document the "device" >> >> > parameters in >> >> > our json schema. Since we have BlockBackend now, device-name >> >> > and node-name >> >> > could be better distinguished. All we have to do is giving a >> >> > beautiful name to >> >> > both. >> >> > >> >> > [This patch is only a copy&paste and is consistent with the >> >> > rest part of the >> >> > file. So I'll leave it for now :] >> >> >> >> The rest of the file doesn't accept node names. But looking at your >> >> actual code, it seems that you are doing the same (by usign bdrv_find() >> >> instead of bdrv_lookup_bs()). >> > >> > Yes, to be consistent with drive-backup. >> > >> >> >> >> Shouldn't a proper blockdev-* command accept node names as well? >> >> >> > >> > I am not sure, it's still blockdev-backup, not blocknode-backup. >> > >> > I think that may be another thing, to changed drive-*'s @device >> > parameter, and >> > blockdev-*'s @device and @target to accept node names, altogether. >> >> We have many commands identifying nodes by some name: root nodes by BDS >> device_name[] (now BB name), inner nodes by "file name" (ugh), and >> arbitrary nodes by BDS name_name[]. >> >> An obvious task is deprecating "file name" in favor of node names. >> >> Less obvious is where to accept a node name instead of / in addition to >> a device name. >> >> Want me to start a thread on this? > > Yes please, it's good to review the situation and make some concrete > convention and plan for the transition.
Done: Review of monitor commands identifying BDS / BB by name
