Anthony Liguori schrieb: > Kevin Wolf wrote: >> Avi Kivity schrieb: >> >>> The qcow block driver format is no longer maintained and likely contains >>> serious data corruptors. Urge users to stay away for it, and advertise >>> the new and improved replacement. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >> vvfat is using qcow internally, so the warning will appear there, too. >> Not that warning against vvfat would be a bad thing, but this error >> message could be confusing. >> >> Maybe we're lucky enough and vvfat survives a s/qcow/qcow2/, but I >> really never wanted to touch that code... >> > > I'm not sure how I feel about this. Can we prove qcow is broken? Is it > only broken for writes and not reads? > > If we're printing a warning, does that mean we want to deprecate qcow > and eventually remove it (or remove write support, at least)? I haven't commented on the intention of deprecating qcow1, I'm not sure either. But the bug that turned up yesterday was present for a month and nobody saw it. So I guess we can take that as a sign that qcow isn't really used that much any more. On the other hand, I think maintaining qcow1 isn't that hard. It won't get new features, so we'll not have a whole lot of changes. We must test it from time to time. And when it comes to fixing, I think qcow1 is much easier for us than, say, VMDK. Kevin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
