On 19/01/2016 17:44, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> > As a first reaction, I would really avoid magic unless the server
>> > provides a single exports. But even in that case, I would prefer to
>> > have some synchronization between the server and client command-line.
>> >
>> > Is an empty
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:30:35AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 19/01/2016 17:44, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >> > As a first reaction, I would really avoid magic unless the server
> >> > provides a single exports. But even in that case, I would prefer to
> >> > have some
The NBD client is currently only capable of using the new style
protocol negotiation if an explicit export name is provided.
This is a problem, because TLS support will require use of the
new style protocol in all cases, and we wish to keep the export
name as an optional request for backwards
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 05:14:32PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 19/01/2016 14:09, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > The NBD client is currently only capable of using the new style
> > protocol negotiation if an explicit export name is provided.
> > This is a problem, because TLS support will
On 19/01/2016 14:09, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> The NBD client is currently only capable of using the new style
> protocol negotiation if an explicit export name is provided.
> This is a problem, because TLS support will require use of the
> new style protocol in all cases, and we wish to keep