[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v2 3/3] iotests: Add test for colon handling
From: |
Eric Blake |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v2 3/3] iotests: Add test for colon handling |
Date: |
Mon, 22 May 2017 15:06:01 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.0 |
On 05/22/2017 02:52 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <address@hidden>
> ---
> tests/qemu-iotests/126 | 105
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> tests/qemu-iotests/126.out | 23 ++++++++++
> tests/qemu-iotests/group | 1 +
> 3 files changed, 129 insertions(+)
> create mode 100755 tests/qemu-iotests/126
> create mode 100644 tests/qemu-iotests/126.out
>
> +# Note that we could also do the same test with
> BASE_IMG=file:image:base.$IMGFMT
> +# -- but behavior for that case is a bit strange. Protocol-prefixed paths are
> +# in a sense always absolute paths, so such paths will never be combined with
> +# the path of the overlay. But since "image:base.$IMGFMT" is actually a
> +# relative path, it will always be evaluated relative to qemu's CWD (but not
> +# relative to the overlay!). While this is more or less intended, it is still
> +# pretty strange and thus not something that is tested here.
> +# (The root of the issue is to use a relative path with a protocol prefix.
> This
s/to/the/
> +# may always give you weird results because in one sense, qemu considers
> such
> +# paths absolute, whereas in another, they are still relative.)
Should we tighten qemu to forbid the use of a protocol prefix with a
non-absolute path? But that can be a subsequent patch, I don't see it
as a reason to hold up this one.
Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature