On 15.07.2016 17:18, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 07/15/2016 07:36 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 14.07.2016 23:36, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> On 07/14/2016 07:28 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
There is no reason why an NBD server couldn't be started for any node,
even if it's not on the top level. This
On 07/15/2016 07:36 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 14.07.2016 23:36, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 07/14/2016 07:28 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> There is no reason why an NBD server couldn't be started for any node,
>>> even if it's not on the top level. This converts nbd-server-add to
>>> accept a node-name.
On 14.07.2016 23:36, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 07/14/2016 07:28 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> There is no reason why an NBD server couldn't be started for any node,
>> even if it's not on the top level. This converts nbd-server-add to
>> accept a node-name.
>>
>> Note that there is a semantic difference
On 07/14/2016 07:28 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> There is no reason why an NBD server couldn't be started for any node,
> even if it's not on the top level. This converts nbd-server-add to
> accept a node-name.
>
> Note that there is a semantic difference between using a BlockBackend
> name and the
There is no reason why an NBD server couldn't be started for any node,
even if it's not on the top level. This converts nbd-server-add to
accept a node-name.
Note that there is a semantic difference between using a BlockBackend
name and the node name of its root: In the former case, the NBD
