On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Eric Blake <
address@hidden> wrote:
> On 09/05/2012 09:08 AM, Bharata B Rao wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Jiri Denemark <
address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> @@ -1042,6 +1043,13 @@
>>>> <attribute name="port">
>>>> <ref name="unsignedInt"/>
>>>> </attribute>
>>>> + <attribute name="transport">
>>>> + <choice>
>>>> + <value>socket</value>
>>>> + <value>unix</value>
>>>> + <value>rdma</value>
>>>
>>> This could be a bit confusing as socket is too generic, after all unix is also
>>> a socket. Could we change the values "tcp", "unix", "rdma" or something
>>> similar depending on what "socket" was supposed to mean?
>>
>> That is how gluster calls it and hence I am using the same in QEMU and
>> the same is true here too. This is something for gluster developers to
>> decide if they want to change socket to something more specific like
>> tcp as you suggest.
>
> Just because gluster calls it a confusing name does not mean we have to
> repeat the confusion in libvirt - it is feasible to have a mapping where
> we name it 'tcp' in the XML but map that to 'socket' in the command line
> that eventually reaches gluster. The question then becomes whether
> using sensible naming in libvirt, but no longer directly mapped to
> underlying gluster naming, will be the cause of its own set of headaches.