On Wed, 03/01 17:22, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 01.03.2017 um 17:10 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben: > > On Wed, 03/01 16:16, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > > > I'm not sure about this because: 1) this is intrusive from a user PoV, > > > > many > > > > scripts and upper layer tools will stop working; > > > > > > Are you sure? I don't expect user scripts or even proper management > > > tools to use qemu-io on running VMs. I do expect that some users are > > > using 'convert -s' with running VMs despite our recommendation against > > > it. > > > > > > If they are aware that they're doing something that works only in the > > > right circumstances, then breaking it isn't nice. But my gut feeling is > > > that most of them don't know about the implications of accessing a live > > > image. In this case breaking their use case and making them think about > > > whether they want to add something like a --force option sounds like a > > > good thing because they aren't caught by surprise when things go wrong > > > eventually. > > > > Yes, the use case is poor for qcow2, and your points stand there. But image > > locking will be at the posix level, which has a wider range of users. I > > cannot > > draw the same conclusion on raw images as easily. > > Well, with raw, I'm even less concerned about breaking the commands > related to internal snapshots. :-)
Yes, I'm agree with a --force there. For qemu-img map and qemu-io, personally I think it's better to keep the default working. qemu-io is a expert mode tool, whoever using it at all should already know what he's doing, --force doesn't add much protection for the innocent. Fam
