From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA0141FF165
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Thu,  5 Jun 2025 16:16:50 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6FC4F1A36F;
	Thu,  5 Jun 2025 16:17:08 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 16:17:04 +0200 (CEST)
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <1715554393.3099.1749133024392@webmail.proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <3ae9921d-cc0a-460b-a560-b5edd97c1556@proxmox.com>
References: <20250603075558.627850-1-alexandre.derumier@groupe-cyllene.com>
 <mailman.237.1748948724.395.pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
 <3ae9921d-cc0a-460b-a560-b5edd97c1556@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.6-Rev78
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.045 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server 01/13] blockdev: cmdline: add
 blockdev syntax support
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>


> Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> hat am 05.06.2025 15:23 CEST geschrieben:
> 
>  
> Am 03.06.25 um 09:55 schrieb Alexandre Derumier via pve-devel:
> > +sub encode_nodename {
> > +    my ($type, $volid, $snap) = @_;
> > +
> > +    my $nodename = "$volid";
> > +    $nodename .= "-$snap" if $snap;
> 
> This will lead to clashes in some cases:
> 1. Currently, we allow attaching the same volume multiple times to a
> single guest.
> 2. You can end up with the same name for
> volname = vm-1234-disk-0-foo
> and for
> volname = vm-1234-disk-0, snap = foo
> 
> The latter can be rather easily fixed by just using a character we don't
> usually support for volume names, but not the former. So I'd like to do
> the switch to -blockdev without support for "looking up which node a
> certain volume is" at first. In general, I feel like mixing the switch
> to -blockdev with your larger series is too much at once. We should
> first get the switch to -blockdev completely and cleanly sorted out,
> then we can add your external qcow2 support on top.
> 
> I think we can even rely on auto-generated-by-QEMU node names at first.
> We can later switch to a variant where node names encode additional
> information. Or we could also think about patching QEMU to better fit
> the need for the "looking up which node a certain volume is" feature.
> But I don't think figuring this out should block us right now for the
> switch to "-blockdev".
> 
> I'll try to work out a series that focuses just on the switch to
> "-blockdev" based on your patches during the next week or so. Maybe not
> much else needs to be changed :) The work is certainly greatly appreciated!
> 
> @Fabian opinions?

I think this is a good disentanglement approach, provided we keep anything
"special" required by the qcow2 series in mind while doing so (to avoid
the need for double compat hacks).


_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel