From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60739) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aVOfE-0002Mt-Mv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:18:32 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aVOfD-0002lD-Og for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:18:28 -0500 References: <1455023713-104799-1-git-send-email-silbe@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1455023713-104799-4-git-send-email-silbe@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <56BB6231.3060103@redhat.com> <87mvr8cqod.fsf@oc4731375738.ibm.com> From: Max Reitz Message-ID: <56C2247C.3010105@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:18:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87mvr8cqod.fsf@oc4731375738.ibm.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="fq3JAAiW6m2sLNvcQAK4fHA6PhlRI43xx" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/3] qemu-iotests: 140: use virtio-scsi instead of IDE List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Sascha Silbe , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alexander Graf , Kevin Wolf , qemu-block@nongnu.org Cc: Tu Bo This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --fq3JAAiW6m2sLNvcQAK4fHA6PhlRI43xx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 10.02.2016 20:26, Sascha Silbe wrote: > Dear Max, >=20 > Max Reitz writes: >=20 > [tests/qemu-iotests/140] >>> -_launch_qemu -drive if=3Dide,media=3Dcdrom,id=3Ddrv,file=3D"$TEST_IM= G",format=3D$IMGFMT \ >>> - 2> >(_filter_nbd) >>> +_launch_qemu -drive if=3Dnone,media=3Dcdrom,id=3Ddrv,file=3D"$TEST_I= MG",format=3D$IMGFMT \ >>> + -device virtio-scsi -device scsi-cd,drive=3Ddrv 2> >(_filter_nbd= ) >> >> Why not just omit the device (and the media=3Dcdrom along with it, kee= ping >> if=3Dnone)? This will change the reference output because there is no >> longer any tray to be moved, but this will still test what it's suppos= ed to. >> >> (This may sound hypocritical coming from me, because I wrote this test= >> so I could have just done so in the first place; I guess I just didn't= >> realize that 'eject' works on device-less drives, too.) >=20 > Is this supposed to work? I.e. can we rely on it? Let's say I would rely on it. :-) (which is why I proposed it) The test checks that ejecting a BlockDriverState tree from a BlockBackend (that is, a medium from a drive) works even if that BlockBackend is exposed via an NBD server. It doesn't really matter whether the drive has a device or not, the main thing is that the NBD server notices that the medium is ejected and automatically stops offering the drive. So I would think that we are supposed to be able to rely on it; if we cannot, something else is probably broken. > If so, that would > certainly be the easier route for this particular test. Test coverage > should be unaffected as 139 already tests ejection (using virtio, unlik= e > 118 which is PC-only). >=20 > The aliases patch has a value of its own, but that's a separate > matter. Yes, certainly. Max --fq3JAAiW6m2sLNvcQAK4fHA6PhlRI43xx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWwiR8AAoJEDuxQgLoOKytbjoH/39Gd7hxxm0mXlhU4V9c+tL7 euzVOl8Xi7WQntzGqGlo1FY6I7JDL4Dnu5wHUAC2UlNsbEtAj+PQszVcE5S+J7Ua EjB7BeQXcqufzfdVijsPB6CQLtVnqKlXTrKRmyGiTUvHdJRcILldteP9y7odObke At8SKDZLFsdBwSj+e7GBfX3i2fOOPyVbZ6rY5D4ruVWZXtbrgM4cvJ6eThKqkmrP Al9vbyThR9xzur+b+qxN8aRoKM8x3uG3hxNbC5kttNTHZJ3PDjiKcmarwdHeJWTT FM9xyd1159FBmHYkyTtbEeQ6Hnl70lEjvdl7oDYm8Nq8yVmqr1p5qB5b8QlZ6XM= =m3t2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --fq3JAAiW6m2sLNvcQAK4fHA6PhlRI43xx--