qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/5] blockdev: Reject multiple definitions for t


From: Markus Armbruster
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/5] blockdev: Reject multiple definitions for the same drive
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 18:30:58 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)

Kevin Wolf <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 21.01.2011 17:58, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
>> Kevin Wolf <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>>> Am 17.01.2011 19:31, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
>>>> For reasons lost in the mist of time, we silently ignore multiple
>>>> definitions for the same drive:
>>>>
>>>>     $ qemu-system-x86_64 -nodefaults -vnc :1 -S -monitor stdio -drive 
>>>> if=ide,index=1,file=tmp.qcow2 -drive if=ide,index=1,file=nonexistant
>>>>     QEMU 0.13.50 monitor - type 'help' for more information
>>>>     (qemu) info block
>>>>     ide0-hd1: type=hd removable=0 file=tmp.qcow2 backing_file=tmp.img ro=0 
>>>> drv=qcow2 encrypted=0
>>>>
>>>> With if=none, this can become quite confusing:
>>>>
>>>>     $ qemu-system-x86_64 -nodefaults -vnc :1 -S -monitor stdio -drive 
>>>> if=none,index=1,file=tmp.qcow2,id=eins -drive 
>>>> if=none,index=1,file=nonexistant,id=zwei -device ide-drive,drive=eins 
>>>> -device ide-drive,drive=zwei
>>>>     qemu-system-x86_64: -device ide-drive,drive=zwei: Property 
>>>> 'ide-drive.drive' can't find value 'zwei'
>>>>
>>>> The second -device fails, because it refers to drive zwei, which got
>>>> silently ignored.
>>>>
>>>> Make multiple drive definitions fail cleanly.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <address@hidden>
>>>
>>> Dropped this one (and patch 5, which depends on it) from the block
>>> branch again, it breaks -cdrom and probably other drives which are
>>> created by default.
>> 
>> --verbose?
>> 
>> I was wondering what crap could depend on the crazy silent ignore...
>
> Just try using -cdrom and you'll see yourself.

Works for me.  Possibly due to some "it's late on Friday" stupidity on
my part.

>>From what I understand, we always create the default device. If the user
> has actually specified one, we still try to create the default device,
> it fails and that failure was ignored until now (and with the patch
> applied qemu aborts in this case).

Example command line for the mentally-challenged-on-Fridays?



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]