Am 04.04.2023 um 17:07 hat Michael Tokarev geschrieben: > 04.04.2023 16:57, Kevin Wolf пишет: > > Let's not make the use of -drive look more advisable than it really is. > > If you're writing a management tool/script and you're still using -drive > > today, you're doing it wrong. > > Kevin, maybe I'm wrong here, but what to do with the situation which > started it all, -- with -snapshot? > > If anything, I think there should be a bold note that -snapshot is > broken by -blockdev. Users are learning that the *hard* way, after > losing their data.. Ah, I missed this context. Maybe -snapshot should error out if -blockdev is in use. You'd generally expect that either -blockdev is used primarily and snapshots are done externally (if the command line is generated by some management tool), or that -drive is used consistently (by a human who likes the convenience). In both cases, we wouldn't hit the error path. There may be some exceptional cases where you have both -drive and -blockdev (maybe because a human users needs more control for one specific disk). This is the case where you can get a nasty surprise and that would error out. If you legitimately want the -drive images snapshotted, but not the -blockdev ones, you can still use individual '-drive snapshot=on' options instead of the global '-snapshot' (and the error message should mention this). Would you see any problems with such an approach? Kevin
