Alberto Garcia writes:
> On Tue 11 Oct 2016 06:32:39 PM CEST, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
3) QEMU could advertise that feature to the client. This is probably
simpler than trying to figure it out from the API. I guess that's
the idea of 'qmp_capabilities'?
>>>
>>> I think that was t
On Tue 11 Oct 2016 06:32:39 PM CEST, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> 3) QEMU could advertise that feature to the client. This is probably
>>> simpler than trying to figure it out from the API. I guess that's
>>> the idea of 'qmp_capabilities'?
>>
>> I think that was the idea, though it was never used
On Tue 11 Oct 2016 06:50:27 PM CEST, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> * Is the extended command still a sane interface? If writing clear
> documentation for it is hard, it perhaps isn't. Pay special
> attention to failure modes. Overloaded arguments are prone to
> confusing errors.
This is wha
Am 11.10.2016 um 18:50 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben:
> Eric Blake writes:
>
> > On 10/11/2016 09:57 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >> Should we introduce a new, clean blockdev-stream command that fixes this
> >> and matches the common name pattern? Of course, block-stream vs.
> >> blockdev-stream c
Eric Blake writes:
> On 10/11/2016 09:57 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Should we introduce a new, clean blockdev-stream command that fixes this
>> and matches the common name pattern? Of course, block-stream vs.
>> blockdev-stream could be a bit confusing, too...
>>
>
> A new command is easy to intro
Kevin Wolf writes:
> Am 11.10.2016 um 16:30 hat Alberto Garcia geschrieben:
[...]
>> 3) QEMU could advertise that feature to the client. This is probably
>> simpler than trying to figure it out from the API. I guess that's the
>> idea of 'qmp_capabilities'?
>
> I think that was the idea, though i
On 10/11/2016 09:57 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Should we introduce a new, clean blockdev-stream command that fixes this
> and matches the common name pattern? Of course, block-stream vs.
> blockdev-stream could be a bit confusing, too...
>
A new command is easy to introspect (query-commands), lets u
Am 11.10.2016 um 16:30 hat Alberto Garcia geschrieben:
> On Mon 10 Oct 2016 09:09:25 PM CEST, Eric Blake wrote:
> >> # @job-id: #optional identifier for the newly-created block job. If
> >> # omitted, the device name will be used. (Since 2.7)
> >> #
> >> -# @device: the device name or n
On Mon 10 Oct 2016 09:09:25 PM CEST, Eric Blake wrote:
>> # @job-id: #optional identifier for the newly-created block job. If
>> # omitted, the device name will be used. (Since 2.7)
>> #
>> -# @device: the device name or node-name of a root node
>> +# @device: the device or node name of
On 10/06/2016 08:02 AM, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> This patch makes the 'device' parameter of the 'block-stream' command
> accept a node name that is not a root node.
>
> In addition to that, operation blockers will be checked in all
> intermediate nodes between the top and the base node.
>
> Signed
10 matches
Mail list logo