Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v6 0/2] allow blockdev-add for NFS

[Kevin Wolf]

Am 19.01.2017 um 16:44 hat Peter Lieven geschrieben:
> Am 19.01.2017 um 16:42 schrieb Kevin Wolf:
> >Am 19.01.2017 um 16:34 hat Peter Lieven geschrieben:
> >>Am 19.01.2017 um 16:20 schrieb Kevin Wolf:
> >>>Am 19.01.2017 um 15:59 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
> >>>>On 01/19/2017 08:30 AM, Peter Lieven wrote:
> >>>>>>>qemu-img: Could not open
> >>>>>>>'nfs://172.21.200.61/vcore-dev-cdrom/templates/VC_debian8-20170116.qcow2,linux?readahead=131072':
> >>>>>>>Block protocol 'nfs' doesn't support the option 'readahead-size'
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Please let me know if the below fix would be correct:
> >>>>>>No, this needs to be fixed the other way round: runtime_opts must use
> >>>>>>the names as specified in the schema, and nfs_client_open() must access
> >>>>>>them as such. Without that, blockdev-add can't work (and the command
> >>>>>>line only with the "wrong" old option names from the URL, whereas it
> >>>>>>should be using the same names as the QAPI schema).
> >>>>>Shouldn't we support both for backwards compatiblity.?
> >>>>blockdev-add only needs to support the modern naming.  But yes,
> >>>>preserving back-compat spelling of the command-line spellings, as well
> >>>>as matching blockdev-add spellings, is desirable.
> >>>We only just added the individual command line options, previously it
> >>>only supported the URL.
> >>>
> >>>It's true that we have the messed up version of the options in 2.8, so
> >>>strictly speaking we would break compatibility with a release, but it's
> >>>only one release, it's only the nfs driver, and the documentation of the
> >>>options is the schema, which had the right option names even in 2.8
> >>>(they just didn't work).
> >>>
> >>>So I wouldn't feel bad about removing the wrong names in this specific
> >>>case.
> >>So want exactly do you want to do? Fix the names in the QAPI schema
> >>to use the old naming?
> >No, fix the command line to use the names in the QAPI schema.
> >
> >The option names from the URL were never supposed to be supported on the
> >command line.
> 
> Okay, so no backwards compatiblity? I actually used the options on the 
> command line...

Well, do you _need_ compatibility?

It can certainly be done, but as the (wrong) options on the command line
have only existed since November and were never documented, I wouldn't
bother unless there's a good reason.

Kevin