From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57998)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mreitz@redhat.com>) id 1XgxCu-0000ZY-RJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:48:19 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mreitz@redhat.com>) id 1XgxCn-00047V-Uk
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:48:12 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35907)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mreitz@redhat.com>) id 1XgxCn-00047E-NS
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:48:05 -0400
Message-ID: <5447C3A0.40009@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:48:00 +0200
From: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1413984271-15471-1-git-send-email-mreitz@redhat.com>
	<1413984271-15471-4-git-send-email-mreitz@redhat.com>
	<20141022135112.GO3188@noname.str.redhat.com>
	<5447B71E.1080701@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <5447B71E.1080701@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] iotests: Add test for map commands
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: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>, =?windows-1252?Q?Beno=EEt_Canet?= <benoit.canet@nodalink.com>

On 2014-10-22 at 15:54, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 2014-10-22 at 15:51, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Am 22.10.2014 um 15:24 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
>>> Add a test for qemu-img map and qemu-io -c map on truncated files.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
>>
>> But how about adding a case for patch 2, too? Or is that one mostly
>> theoretical (like the image file being modified in the background) and
>> not reproducible reliably?
>
> See the cover letter, I could not find a way to test patch 2 without 
> triggering the changes introduced by patch 1. Yes, modifying the image 
> in the background could be a way to do this. I could try, but I don't 
> know if we really need a test for it.
>
> I'll give myself a couple of minutes and if it doesn't work, well, 
> then this test stays the same in v3.

And I just realized that my series "raw-posix: Fix 
raw_co_get_block_status()" contains exactly such a test, which is also 
the reason why it doesn't work without this series.

Max