Le Friday 06 Dec 2013 à 11:52:15 (-0500), Luiz Capitulino a écrit :
> On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 08:24:33 -0700
> Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On 12/06/2013 07:27 AM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > > On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 18:15:00 +0100
> > > Benoît Canet <ben...@irqsave.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> -{ 'command': 'block_passwd', 'data': {'device': 'str', 'password':
> > >> 'str'} }
> > >> +{ 'command': 'block_passwd', 'data': {'*device': 'str',
> > >> + '*node-name': 'str', 'password':
> > >> 'str'} }
> > >
> > > What about:
> > >
> > > { 'command': 'block_passwd', 'data': {'device': 'str',
> > > '*device-is-node': 'bool',
> > > 'password': 'str'} }
> >
> > That would also work; the naming is a bit more awkward, but then you
> > don't have the issue of mutually-exclusive optional arguments where
> > exactly one of the two arguments is required.
>
> Yes, and I dislike that very much.
Luiz, I will rewrite these patch using your boolean.
Best regards
Benoît
>
> Btw, can anyone remind me why we can't have new commands instead?
That would mean doubling the whole QMP block command set once the work is done.
>
> > I'm leaning slightly towards the approach that Benoît took, if only for
> > the naming aspect (that is, I also thought of the idea of a bool flag,
> > but didn't suggest it because I didn't like the implications on the
> > naming). But I can live with either approach, if anyone else has a
> > strong opinion.
>
> Well, we can pick up any descriptive name 'treat-device-as-a-node',
> 'device-is-a-graph-node'...
>
