Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] iotests: Don't mention bdrv_swap in comments

[Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>]

Am 17.12.2015 um 06:09 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben:
> Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com>
> ---
>  tests/qemu-iotests/094 | 4 +---
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/qemu-iotests/094 b/tests/qemu-iotests/094
> index 27a2be2..d30c78d 100755
> --- a/tests/qemu-iotests/094
> +++ b/tests/qemu-iotests/094
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
>  #!/bin/bash
>  #
> -# Test case for drive-mirror to NBD (especially bdrv_swap() on NBD BDS)
> +# Test case for drive-mirror to NBD
>  #
>  # Copyright (C) 2015 Red Hat, Inc.
>  #
> @@ -50,8 +50,6 @@ _send_qemu_cmd $QEMU_HANDLE \
>      "{'execute': 'qmp_capabilities'}" \
>      'return'
>  
> -# 'format': 'nbd' is not actually "correct", but this is probably the only way
> -# to test bdrv_swap() on an NBD BDS
>  _send_qemu_cmd $QEMU_HANDLE  \
>      "{'execute': 'drive-mirror',
>        'arguments': {'device': 'src',

Just completely removing the comment doesn't seem right to me if we
leave the "bad" option around.

The test seems to be a regression test for what was fixed in commit
f53a829, i.e. a direct effect of bdrv_swap(). This effect can't exist
any more, so we would keep the test just for some additional coverage
for NBD. Do we still need 'format': 'nbd' (if so, with a comment why we
do that) or should we make it 'raw' now?

Kevin