From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35705) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XpDBx-00066r-F9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 04:29:26 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XpDBs-0004Al-0c for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 04:29:21 -0500 Received: from mail-wi0-x22b.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b]:53853) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XpDBr-0004AK-Pd for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 04:29:15 -0500 Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id r20so2024642wiv.16 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:29:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:29:12 +0000 From: Stefan Hajnoczi Message-ID: <20141114092912.GA16718@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> References: <1415938161-16217-1-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1415938161-16217-1-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] vmdk: Leave bdi intact if -ENOTSUP in vmdk_get_info List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Fam Zheng Cc: Kevin Wolf , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , Max Reitz --sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:09:21PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote: > When extent types don't match, we return -ENOTSUP. In this case, be > polite to the caller and don't modify bdi. >=20 > Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng > --- > block/vmdk.c | 20 +++++++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) At this stage of the release process it would be very helpful to include some context for this patch: is it a pure cleanup or actually a bug fix that needs to go into QEMU 2.2? Since you are a regular contributor and I therefore trust you, I have merged this patch. But please be clear in commit descriptions about whether or not a patch is a bug fix (how to reproduce the bug, if a previous commit's regression is being fixed, etc). Thanks, applied to my block tree: https://github.com/stefanha/qemu/commits/block Stefan --sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUZctoAAoJEJykq7OBq3PIrmgIAKyi3O9WeST+qOxM64IjlR5M 1RJaxTK6XyrSnh9B2Qzl+ZvTm8eSB9LMvo0fnq0dVZSAjUuQ3ue9TvWwoIHI165L QR3fzqHfY3vYxxeSvKPTx8f2xXo+tNa5PzXz4Gqw8hOXKxsR6YzwXWxSDTCdaZok LVlJCzVD8uqZg9gdOCGhMEev3JEAL9OYJA5E23eLV+H1WrwqdIdf030+0psIm3h1 ZbV5Rno8Bmx3wgHo4/aO6ciqqdJQHCrtXUJOLUxl+o4DHq4zTQW1vFgCOf6rCgGW CRpQtJkWCyQLm3x6JCIfwlErk0APxIvBwpzhgh4zKp6e6uD5IbStAU+2JwykP2M= =M4bm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c--