On 05/04/2016 17:27, Alex Bligh wrote: >>> I'm missing how the ugh-author can write the software without knowing >>> exactly what the bit does. Or are you saying "that's a matter >>> for the qemu spec, not the nbd spec"? > > > > Yes, that's it. NBD defines a safe default and a general idea of what > > it should be used for. > > OK, so my argument then is we should not have a special case > 'only Qemu knows what this does' bit if we can avoid at, and > instead have a general system of 'proprietary bits' (unfortunate > word but perhaps 'non-NBD').
I think it is generic enough. Ideally the backup software wouldn't see the QEMU-specific bits, those would be provided by a management layer (such as OpenStack/Virtuozzo/oVirt/ProxMox). They would just know to copy the dirty bits. Paolo
