Am 30.06.2009 um 15:32 schrieb Anthony Liguori:
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The qcow block driver format is no longer maintained and likely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'm confused now. Only recently someone stepped up, saying that qcow2
was broken and that qcow should be used instead for safety reasons.
Now all of a sudden, it's the exact opposite, you're even considering
replacing qcow with qcow2 for vvfat and dropping qcow support.
Andreas
--
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
