qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 03/14] blockdev: Use blk_new_open() in blockd


From: Eric Blake
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 03/14] blockdev: Use blk_new_open() in blockdev_init()
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:37:53 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0

On 01/26/2015 08:00 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
> Due to different error propagation, this breaks tests 051 and 087; fix
> their output.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <address@hidden>
> ---
>  blockdev.c                 | 92 
> +++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
>  tests/qemu-iotests/051.out | 60 +++++++++++++++---------------
>  tests/qemu-iotests/087.out |  8 ++--
>  3 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 84 deletions(-)

>  
>  Testing: -drive file=TEST_DIR/t.qcow2,driver=raw,format=qcow2
> -QEMU_PROG: -drive file=TEST_DIR/t.qcow2,driver=raw,format=qcow2: could not 
> open disk image TEST_DIR/t.qcow2: Driver specified twice
> +QEMU_PROG: -drive file=TEST_DIR/t.qcow2,driver=raw,format=qcow2: Cannot 
> specify both 'driver' and 'format'

Is it possible to specify driver=qcow2,format=qcow2?  Should it be?
Either way, are we testing the outcome of that?  (that is, there is a
difference between two competing options, and two spellings of the same
option - I could go for either rejecting the duplication, or for
allowing it when the two are the same, whichever is easier, but would
like to make sure it is tested so we know if we change our minds later
whether we are risking a regression).

>  
>  
>  === Specifying both an option and its legacy alias ===
> @@ -323,13 +323,13 @@ QEMU_PROG: -drive 
> file=TEST_DIR/t.qcow2,readonly=on,read-only=off: 'read-only' a
>  === Parsing protocol from file name ===
>  
>  Testing: -hda foo:bar
> -QEMU_PROG: -hda foo:bar: could not open disk image foo:bar: Unknown protocol
> +QEMU_PROG: -hda foo:bar: Unknown protocol

Not the fault of this patch, but can this error message be improved?
Even 'Unknown protocol: foo' would read better.

All of the other shorter error messages still seem to read fine, and the
decrease in verbosity could be argued as a feature.  So overall, I'm
fine with this patch.

Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


reply via email to

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