![qemu monitor commands qemu monitor commands](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fGHFBKG2n7k/UoEyiHEH76I/AAAAAAAAAUA/ZqpDpQmjMoM/s1600/qemu.png)
> object member, and that's taken by BlockdevOptions.
![qemu monitor commands qemu monitor commands](https://i1.read01.com/SIG=n9s8if/30447a31584c77353751.jpg)
> "pair of names" convention, because an anonymous union can have only one > As Kevin pointed out, you can't easily change BlockdevOptions to the > the latter Example: block_passwd parameters and I'd very much like some consistency here. > Elsewhere, command argument objects have a pair of optional members, > member as above, and a member that may again name a > Example: a BlockdevOptionsQcow2 object (used for "qcow2"), has a > and others) has a member that may name a backend or a node. > Example: a BlockdevOptionsGenericFormat object (used for format "raw" > member is an anonymous union of string and BlockdevOptions. > string member, with a name that explains its role. > Within BlockdevOptions objects (used by blockdev-add), we use a single > As we saw in my review of monitor commands, we have two different > Let's concentrate on the "command needs a node" case. There, a backend name resolves to the backend, not its > Should not be confused with a command that can work either on a backend > either kind of name, and a backend name is resolved to its root node. > Enables a convenience feature: when a command needs a node, we accept > Conscious design decision: Backend (BB) and node (BDS) names share a Re: Can we make monitor commands identify BDS / BB by name consistently? (was: Review of monitor commands identifying BDS / BB by name)Īm um 19:12 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben: Re: Can we make monitor commands identify BDS / BB by name