On Thu, 2019-08-22 at 16:42 +0200, Max Reitz wrote: > On 22.08.19 13:32, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 08:29:55PM +0200, Max Reitz wrote: > > > On 14.08.19 22:22, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > > > Signed-off-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevi...@redhat.com> > > > > --- > > > > block/crypto.c | 16 ++++++ > > > > block/crypto.h | 3 + > > > > qemu-img-cmds.hx | 13 +++++ > > > > qemu-img.c | 140 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > 4 files changed, 172 insertions(+) > > > > > > Yes, this seems a bit weird. Putting it under amend seems like the > > > natural thing if that works; if not, I think it should be a single > > > qemu-img subcommand instead of two. > > > > I'm not convinced by overloading two distinct operations on to one > > sub-command - doesn't seem to give an obvious benefit to overload > > them & IME experiance overloading results in harder to understand > > commands due to having distinct args to each command. > > Because it suits the qemu-img interface we currently have. For example, > we have a single subcommand for internal snapshot management (“qemu-img > snapshot”), so I think it makes sense to have a single subcommand for > encrypted image management.
I personally don't care, other that I do thing that the best here is to use the amend interface. > > Max > Best regards, Maxim Levitsky