Am 07.11.2017 um 13:07 hat Alberto Garcia geschrieben: > On Thu 02 Nov 2017 11:06:28 PM CET, Eric Blake wrote: > > >>>> Using this option, one can directly override what bdrv_dirname() > >>>> will return. This is useful if one uses e.g. qcow2 on top of quorum > >>>> (with only protocol BDSs under the quorum BDS) and wants to be able > >>>> to use relative backing filenames. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <[email protected]> > >>> > >>> Who would be using this option in practice? I understand that > >>>management tools should be using always absolute filenames, and this > >>>API doesn't seem so convenient for humans. > >> > >> Hmmm. I seem to recall Eric liked it a couple of years ago when he > >> was still more on the libvirt side of things. :-) > > > > Ideally, libvirt should be using node names rather than filenames > > (whether absolute or relative); but I still think it could be > > something that turns out to be useful. > > But what would be the use case? For a management tool it's not more > convenient to use relative file names, or is it?
If we add an external API, we must maintain compatibility in future versions, so taking the patch comes with a cost. So I agree with you that we better wait for an actual use case rather than just "could turn out to be useful to someone maybe". (Also, so that I don't have to post a second reply to a patch that might be dropped: "Since: 2.10" wouldn't be quite right any more either way.) Kevin
