Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes: > On 2/1/19 12:39 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Andrey Shinkevich <andrey.shinkev...@virtuozzo.com> writes: >> > >>> >>> ## >>> +# @Qcow2BitmapInfoFlags: >>> +# >>> +# An enumeration of flags that a bitmap can report to the user. >>> +# >>> +# @in-use: The bitmap was not saved correctly and may be inconsistent. >> >> I doubt the casual reader could guess the meaning from the name. What >> about @dirty? > > I like it. The existing name was chosen to match > docs/interop/qcow2.txt, which uses in_use, but I don't see a problem in > making the UI nicer than the specs (and/or rewording the specs, as the > field name doesn't matter there, only the layout). > > >>> +# @unknown-flags: any remaining flags not recognized by the current qemu >>> version >> >> Intended use cases for @unknown-flags? > > The qcow2 spec defines bit 2 extra_data_compatible; and also leaves the > door open for future extensions that may define other bits. If a new > version of qemu (or some non-qemu qcow2 creation app) creates an image > with additional feature bits set, THIS version of qemu doesn't know what > name to give those bits, but can still inform the user that those bits > are set via this field. It will be omitted for all images created by > this version of qemu.
What would QMP clients do with this information?
