Am 29.06.2021 um 09:23 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben: > 28.06.2021 20:42, Eric Blake wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 06:04:19PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > > > This is fine, but it means that this flag will present in all ranges, > > > > instead of only in unallocated ranges (what this patch is doing). > > > > > > An argument for always having the flag would be that it's probably > > > useful for a tool to know whether a given block is actually absent or > > > whether it's just running an old qemu-img. > > > > > > If we didn't care about this, I would still define the actual value, but > > > also document a default. > > > > So to summarize, it looks like my v3 will have the best chance of > > approval if I go with always outputting the new field (instead of only > > on one of its two boolean values), and put it at the end of the JSON > > output. It also looks like we have consensus on spelling the new > > field "present":true for data found in the backing chain, and > > "present":false for places where we would defer to another file if a > > backing file is later added. > > > > I didn't follow the discussion carefully, but that sounds good to me.
To me, too. > What's the decision about patch 1? I think we won't need patch 1 (and the potential backwards compatibility problems it would introduce) when we have this one. Kevin
