On 11/24/14 15:58, Adam Litke wrote: > On 21/11/14 23:03 -0700, Eric Blake wrote: ... >> The problem is that once we have a domain with more than one <disk>, and >> where one or all disks have more than one <backingStore>, then how >> should virDomainListBlockStats represent that? >> >> One idea I have is to just expose a block.count equal to the total >> number of devices I'm about to report on, where the array can be larger >> than the number of disks, and using the name field to correlate back to >> dumpxml layout: > > I prefer this approach as well. However, I don't really like having > to parse the name to pluck the index from between the []. Could this > just be exposed as a first order stat, ie: > > block.count=3 > block.0.name=vda > block.0.backing_index=0 > ... > block.1.name=vda > block.1.backing_index=1 > ... > block.2.name=vdb > block.2.backing_index=0 I'd go with "backing_id". When we switch to node names, the namespace (or numberspace) will become sparse eventually. Peter
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list