On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 06:59:58PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 21/06/2016 17:42, Colin Lord wrote:
> > It could easily return the BlockDriver then
> > using the name field. It seems to me that this would work, and would be
> > a fairly minor change from how things are now (in particular I thin
On 21/06/2016 17:42, Colin Lord wrote:
> It could easily return the BlockDriver then
> using the name field. It seems to me that this would work, and would be
> a fairly minor change from how things are now (in particular I think
> that symlinks wouldn't be necessary with this).
Yes, I agree.
p
On 21/06/2016 11:32, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> I think the issue comes from the fact that you are considering something
> like load_block_module(const char *filename) as the API instead of
> request_block_driver(const char *driver_name). In the latter case it's
> possible to return a BlockDriver
