Am 09.02.2021 um 09:03 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben:
> 08.02.2021 21:44, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Alberto Garcia <be...@igalia.com>
> > ---
> > qapi/block-core.json | 2 +-
> > include/block/block.h | 1 +
> > block.c | 16 +++++--
> > blockdev.c | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> > tests/qemu-iotests/155 | 9 ++--
> > tests/qemu-iotests/165 | 4 +-
> > tests/qemu-iotests/245 | 27 +++++++-----
> > tests/qemu-iotests/248 | 2 +-
> > tests/qemu-iotests/248.out | 2 +-
> > tests/qemu-iotests/298 | 4 +-
> > 10 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/qapi/block-core.json b/qapi/block-core.json
> > index c0e7c23331..b9fcf20a81 100644
> > --- a/qapi/block-core.json
> > +++ b/qapi/block-core.json
> > @@ -4177,7 +4177,7 @@
> > # Since: 4.0
> > ##
> > { 'command': 'x-blockdev-reopen',
> > - 'data': 'BlockdevOptions', 'boxed': true }
> > + 'data': { 'options': ['BlockdevOptions'] } }
>
> Do we also want to drop x- prefix?
libvirt really wants to have a stable blockdev-reopen interface in 6.0
because enabling the incremental backup code depends on this (they just
toggle the readonly flag if I understand correctly, so most of the work
we're currently doing isn't even relevant at this moment for libvirt).
Given that the soft freeze is coming closer (March 16), I wonder if we
should just make this API change and declare the interface stable. We
can then make Vladimir's fixes and the file reopening on top of it - if
it's in time for 6.0, that would be good, but if not we could move it to
6.1 without impacting libvirt.
I think we're reasonable confident that the QAPI interfaces are right,
even if maybe not that all aspects of the implementation are right yet.
What do you think?
Kevin
