On 5 Apr 2016, at 16:23, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: >> I'm missing how the ugh-author can write the software without knowing >> exactly what the bit does. Or are you saying "that's a matter >> for the qemu spec, not the nbd spec"? > > Yes, that's it. NBD defines a safe default and a general idea of what > it should be used for.
OK, so my argument then is we should not have a special case 'only Qemu knows what this does' bit if we can avoid at, and instead have a general system of 'proprietary bits' (unfortunate word but perhaps 'non-NBD'). Of course this is made harder as the NBD_CMD_ size is not extensible (today). -- Alex Bligh
