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. Max
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
