Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] qemu-img check: Distinguish different kinds of errors

[Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>]

Am 06.07.2010 12:51, schrieb MORITA Kazutaka:
> At Fri,  2 Jul 2010 19:14:59 +0200,
> Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>
>> People think that their images are corrupted when in fact there are just some
>> leaked clusters. Differentiating several error cases should make the messages
>> more comprehensible.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  block.c    |   10 ++++++--
>>  block.h    |   10 ++++++++-
>>  qemu-img.c |   62 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>>  3 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

>> @@ -453,28 +462,51 @@ static int img_check(int argc, char **argv)
>>      if (!bs) {
>>          return 1;
>>      }
>> -    ret = bdrv_check(bs);
>> -    switch(ret) {
>> -    case 0:
>> -        printf("No errors were found on the image.\n");
>> -        break;
>> -    case -ENOTSUP:
>> +    ret = bdrv_check(bs, &result);
>> +
>> +    if (ret == -ENOTSUP) {
>>          error("This image format does not support checks");
>> -        break;
>> -    default:
>> -        if (ret < 0) {
>> -            error("An error occurred during the check");
>> -        } else {
>> -            printf("%d errors were found on the image.\n", ret);
>> +        return 1;
> 
> Is it okay to call bdrv_delete(bs) before return?  It is necessary for
> the sheepdog driver to pass qemu-iotests.
> 
> Kazutaka

Yes, you're right. Thanks for catching this, I'll send a new version.

Kevin