On 03/29/2016 09:38 AM, Max Reitz wrote: > On 17.03.2016 10:56, Wen Congyang wrote: >> On 03/17/2016 05:48 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > [...] > >>> The children.0 notation is really confusing in the way that Berto >>> describes; I hit this a couple of months ago and it really doesn't >>> make sense. >> >> Do you mean: read from children.1 first, and then read from children.0 in >> fifo mode? Yes, the behavior is very strange. > > So is this intended or is it not? In > http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-block/2016-03/msg00526.html > you said that it is. > > I myself would indeed say it is very strange. If I were a user, I would > not expect this behavior. And as I developer, I think that how a BDS's > child is used by its parent should solely depend on its role (e.g. > whether it is "children.0" or "children.1").
It sounds like the argument here, and in Max's thread on query-block-node-tree, is that we DO have cases where order matters, and so we need a way for the hot-add operation to explicitly specify where in the list a child is inserted (whether it is being inserted as the new primary image, or explicitly as the last resort, or somewhere in the middle). An optional parameter, that defaults to appending, may be ok, but we definitely need to consider how the order of children is affected by hot-add. -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature