On 2/6/20 6:38 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
I'm OK with it too, as well as I'm OK with the stricter variant, when we
don't allow incompatible images with zlib set. I don't see any serious
difference.
But I need this to land somehow. Max likes stricter variant and he is
maintainer of qcow2..
Max, will you merge it as is, or did you change your mind, or should we
ask Kevin for his opinion?
I’m currently preparing a pull request (without this series), but after
that I’m planning to merge the stricter variant.
As far as I’ve seen, the argument for making it less strict was still
accompanied by “Sure, nobody would set this flag for zlib-compressed
images because that doesn’t make sense”. So if nobody would do that, we
might as well just forbid it and thus ensure that everyone indeed does
the sensible thing.
Fair enough; I'm happy to live with your decision as maintainer's
prerogative.
I _do_ hope that the actual implementation series gets merged soon,
though, and that as part of that series, you remember to tweak the
optional 'Feature Name' extension header to name the new incompatible
bit introduced in this patch. And there's the simultaneous patches from
my qcow2 autoclear-all-zeroes bit that touch the same files, so we may
have some rebasing fun ahead of us...
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
