On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 02:08:23PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 03.02.2016 um 18:06 hat Daniel P. Berrange geschrieben:
> > On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 05:33:16PM +0100, Max Reitz wrote:
> > > We have to introduce a new object (BlockdevOptionsNbd) for several
> > > reasons:
> > > - Neither of InetSock
Am 03.02.2016 um 18:06 hat Daniel P. Berrange geschrieben:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 05:33:16PM +0100, Max Reitz wrote:
> > We have to introduce a new object (BlockdevOptionsNbd) for several
> > reasons:
> > - Neither of InetSocketAddress nor UnixSocketAddress alone is
> > sufficient, because bot
On 03/02/2016 18:16, Max Reitz wrote:
> However, the issue remains that the NBD block driver expects
> flattened options which is syntactically incompatible to
> SocketAddress. Maybe the best way to address this would be to just
> make block/nbd.c directly accept a SocketAddress and keep the old
On 03/02/2016 17:48, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 02/03/2016 09:33 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> We have to introduce a new object (BlockdevOptionsNbd) for
>> several reasons: - Neither of InetSocketAddress nor
>> UnixSocketAddress alone is sufficient, because both are
>> supported - We cannot use SocketAddr
On 03.02.2016 17:48, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 02/03/2016 09:33 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> We have to introduce a new object (BlockdevOptionsNbd) for several
>> reasons:
>> - Neither of InetSocketAddress nor UnixSocketAddress alone is
>> sufficient, because both are supported
>> - We cannot use SocketA
On 03.02.2016 18:06, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 05:33:16PM +0100, Max Reitz wrote:
>> We have to introduce a new object (BlockdevOptionsNbd) for several
>> reasons:
>> - Neither of InetSocketAddress nor UnixSocketAddress alone is
>> sufficient, because both are supported
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 05:33:16PM +0100, Max Reitz wrote:
> We have to introduce a new object (BlockdevOptionsNbd) for several
> reasons:
> - Neither of InetSocketAddress nor UnixSocketAddress alone is
> sufficient, because both are supported
> - We cannot use SocketAddress because NBD does not
On 02/03/2016 09:33 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
> We have to introduce a new object (BlockdevOptionsNbd) for several
> reasons:
> - Neither of InetSocketAddress nor UnixSocketAddress alone is
> sufficient, because both are supported
> - We cannot use SocketAddress because NBD does not support an fd,
>
We have to introduce a new object (BlockdevOptionsNbd) for several
reasons:
- Neither of InetSocketAddress nor UnixSocketAddress alone is
sufficient, because both are supported
- We cannot use SocketAddress because NBD does not support an fd,
and because it is not a flat union which BlockdevOpt
