Re: [Nbd] [PATCH] Further tidy-up on block status
- To: Wouter Verhelst <email@example.com>
- Cc: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Alex Bligh <email@example.com>, nbd list <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Kevin Wolf <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Pavel Borzenkov <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, "Denis V . Lunev" <email@example.com>, Markus Pargmann <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Paolo Bonzini <email@example.com>, John Snow <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [Nbd] [PATCH] Further tidy-up on block status
- From: Eric Blake <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 14:26:56 -0600
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20180228130816.GA19355@grep.be>
- References: <email@example.com> <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org> <[🔎] email@example.com> <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org> <[🔎] 20180228130816.GA19355@grep.be>
On 02/28/2018 07:08 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Or, we can revert the change in commit 56c77720, and keep
NBD_REPLY_TYPE_BLOCK_STATUS at 5 (it leaves a hole in the NBD_REPLY_TYPE
numbering, where 3 and 4 might be filled in by other future extensions, or
permanently skipped). This works IF there are no OTHER incompatible changes
made to the rest of the block status extension as part of promoting it to
current (where we still haven't finished that debate, given my question on
whether 32-bit lengths and colon-separated namespace:leaf in a single string
is the best representation).
So, I'd like some feedback from Alex or Wouter on which alternatives seem
nicest at this point.
I'm thinking that reverting at least the number change seems like a good
idea. If Vladimir can shed some light on what's been published so far,
we can see what damage has been done and try to limit further damage.
It makes no sense to ignore that the spec has been implemented; the
whole point of writing a spec is so that third parties can implement it
and be compatible. If we ignore that just because there was a
misunderstanding, then I think we're throwing away the kid with the
Since I don't think a gap in numbers is that much of a problem, I'm
happy reverting the renumbering part of 56c77720 and keep it at 5. I'd
also like to know what it is exactly that Virtuozzo implemented, so we
can update the extension-blockstatus (if necessary) and then merge that
Okay, I've gone ahead and reverted the renumbering; NBD_INFO_BLOCK_SIZE
is back to 5 (we have a gap in the numbering, but it doesn't hurt).
There's still the open question of whether we want to keep a single
string that requires parsing into "namespace:leaf" sections, or to split
things into two separate strings for ease of handing an unknown
namespace; and whether a 16-bit length is sufficient instead of burning
32-bit length fields. But if we decide that any of those changes are
worth making, we'd also want to do something else to make it obviously
different from Virtuozzo's initial implementation (my idea about
reserving NBD_OPT_ value 10 as unused, and renumbering
NBD_OPT_SET_META_CONTEXT to 11 along with any other changes we make, is
still reasonable for that point).
I'd also like to promote extension-structured-reply to current (now that
it is implemented by qemu), while keeping extension-blockstatus as a
separate branch for just a bit longer.
I'll post another thread on other possible doc changes that have come up
during this thread.
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org