From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59548)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <berto@igalia.com>) id 1Yg6uj-0006YM-DC
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Apr 2015 03:30:19 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <berto@igalia.com>) id 1Yg6uf-0004Go-9M
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Apr 2015 03:30:13 -0400
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 09:30:06 +0200
From: Alberto Garcia <berto@igalia.com>
Message-ID: <20150409073006.GA10878@igalia.com>
References: <cover.1428485266.git.berto@igalia.com>
	<147cec5b3594f4bec0cb41c98afe5fcbfb67567c.1428485266.git.berto@igalia.com>
	<5525BA9F.4070406@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <5525BA9F.4070406@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/3] block: add 'node-name' field to
 BLOCK_IMAGE_CORRUPTED
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, qemu-block@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>

On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 05:32:47PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:

> > +- "device":    Device name (json-string)
> > +- "node-name": Node name (json-string, optional)
> > +- "msg":       Informative message (e.g., reason for the corruption)
> > +               (json-string)
> > +- "offset":    If the corruption resulted from an image access, this
> > +               is the access offset into the image (json-int)
> > +- "size":      If the corruption resulted from an image access, this
> > +               is the access size (json-int)
>=20
> Not your fault (so don't worry about fixing it here), but I still
> find this definition of 'offset' confusing - is it the guest's
> offset, or the host's offset?

=46rom the code it looks like it's the host's offset. And now that it
look into it both 'offset' and 'size' should be marked as optional
there (they are in block-core.json). I'll send a separate patch
correcting all those.

Berto