Am 04.02.2016 um 16:47 hat Daniel P. Berrange geschrieben:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 04:42:06PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 02.02.2016 um 13:57 hat Daniel P. Berrange geschrieben:
> > > @@ -1956,7 +2034,13 @@ static int img_convert(int argc, char **argv)
> > > goto out;
> > > }
> > >
> > > - out_blk = img_open("target", out_filename, out_fmt, flags, true,
> > > quiet);
> > > + /* XXX we should allow --image-opts to trigger use of
> > > + * img_open() here, but then we have trouble with
> > > + * the bdrv_create() call which takes different params.
> > > + * Not critical right now, so fix can wait...
> > > + */
> > > + out_blk = img_open_file("target", out_filename,
> > > + out_fmt, flags, true, quiet);
> >
> > So is the plan to add another option (like --target-image-opts) when
> > this call is converted?
>
> Well I was hoping --image-opts would affect both source and target,
> but i guess if we ship it only affecting source, we can't extend
> it to also affect target without back compat issues, so that might
> force adding a --target-image-opts
Yes, that's exactly why I'm asking. We need to decide now whether this
would be an acceptable outcome or whether we shouldn't have --image-opts
in this command for now at all.
Kevin
