From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:40602) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tvkuc-0008Fx-U4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 03:33:29 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tvkua-0007sj-3I for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 03:33:26 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47310) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TvkuZ-0007sT-R5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 03:33:23 -0500 Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:33:20 +0100 From: Stefan Hajnoczi Message-ID: <20130117083320.GA19607@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> References: <1355580573-19323-1-git-send-email-sw@weilnetz.de> <50F6F72F.2010405@weilnetz.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50F6F72F.2010405@weilnetz.de> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/4] block: Fix error report for wrong file format List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Weil Cc: Kevin Wolf , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 07:53:35PM +0100, Stefan Weil wrote: > Am 15.12.2012 15:09, schrieb Stefan Weil: > >These patches improve the error report if the file format was > >specified explicitly (example: -drive file=myfile,format=qcow2) > >and the given format does not match the real format. > > > >This fixes those bugs: > > > >https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=556482 > >https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/1090600 > > > >[PATCH 1/4] block: Add special error code for wrong format > >[PATCH 2/4] block: Improve error report for wrong format > >[PATCH 3/4] block: Use new error code for wrong format in selected > >[PATCH 4/4] block/vdi: Improved return values from vdi_open and > > Hi Stefan und Kevin, > > these patches are still in my local queue. > > Do you plan to add them to the block queue, or would > you prefer another solution for the open bug reports? Looks okay to me. I'm not thrilled about introducing a non-system error code, would have rather have used EINVAL or ENOTTY. But that's not a killer and I see the reason you chose to do that. Kevin: Any comments before I merge this? Stefan