On 4/14/20 2:06 PM, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 12:36:56 -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
On 4/14/20 4:22 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
It was never implemented and for now I don't think there's demand to do
it. Remove the reference.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812100
Signed-off-by: Peter Krempa <pkrempa@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
docs/formatbackup.html.in | 7 +++----
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/docs/formatbackup.html.in b/docs/formatbackup.html.in
index 55acd13ddc..87744bac98 100644
--- a/docs/formatbackup.html.in
+++ b/docs/formatbackup.html.in
@@ -97,12 +97,11 @@
<dt><code>type</code></dt>
<dd>A mandatory attribute to describe the type of the
disk, except when <code>backup='no'</code> is
- used. Valid values include <code>file</code>,
- <code>block</code>, or <code>network</code>.
+ used. Valid values include <code>file</code>, or
+ <code>block</code>.
I think we should implement block, rather than delete it. It matters for
the same reason that it matters in the destination of block copy: if you
I'm deleting 'network'. Block is implemented, working and tested.
Then shame on me for misreading the patch.
Okay, we may someday add network, but for now making the documentation
match what we have as existing implementation makes sense.
want to set a highest-byte watermark threshold (to be warned by qemu when it
is time to resize the disk larger), you NEED a block device, not a file.
You can do this on a file too.
I seem to recall differences in how the two behave at the qemu level;
but it doesn't affect this patch if we have the means for telling
libvirt which of the two (file or block) we meant.
I'm inclined to NACK this patch.
Wouldn't mean that much since it's necessary to add schema if you want
it.
NACK withdrawn; you've convinced me that the patch (dropping 'network',
not 'block') is reasonable for matching what we have.
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
