On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote: >> >> Well, snapshots have an ID today (which is different from their name). >> Nobody stops you from putting a UUID there. Fully backwards compatible, >> no feature flag needed. I think Miguel was planning to actually do this. >> > > The problem is that management tools have to make a decision about what to > do with ID's that aren't UUIDs which means that in our management interface, > we can't just expose UUIDs but instead we have to expose strings that may > sometimes be UUIDs. > > I don't think it buys us a lot to get the backwards compatibility. >
My main idea is to do not expose any ID/UUID information to the user, at least by default. Snapshots must have a name to be presented to the user, if he/she does not provide one we create it [1]. As you said, the ID field in qcow2 is just a string, so if we put an UUID there, no harm is done. The problem was to store parent information. qcow2 has an extra_data area that can store anything, so I used that space. This feature is an old wish from libvirt guys. I could not follow all the details discussed about qed so far, but would something like this work? Regards, Miguel [1] commit 7d631a116ad8fe07001e2cc4c559a06aac82745f
