From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:57472) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7Nao-00059E-8W for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 05:00:31 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7Nah-0007Zl-W1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 05:00:29 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39691) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7Nah-0007ZK-NS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 05:00:23 -0400 Message-ID: <4F5F0D77.5050100@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:03:51 +0100 From: Kevin Wolf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1331112179-12726-1-git-send-email-wdongxu@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1331112179-12726-3-git-send-email-wdongxu@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20120312181813.GA21109@stefanha-thinkpad.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20120312181813.GA21109@stefanha-thinkpad.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/4 v2 RESEND] block: add dirty flag status to qemu-img List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: Dong Xu Wang , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com Am 12.03.2012 19:18, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi: > On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 05:22:58PM +0800, Dong Xu Wang wrote: >> From: Dong Xu Wang >> >> Some block drivers can verify their image files are clean or not. So we can show >> it while using "qemu-img info. >> >> Signed-off-by: Dong Xu Wang >> --- >> block.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ >> block.h | 2 ++ >> block_int.h | 1 + >> qemu-img.c | 3 +++ >> 4 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/block.c b/block.c >> index 947607b..17e9ba8 100644 >> --- a/block.c >> +++ b/block.c >> @@ -193,6 +193,20 @@ static void bdrv_io_limits_intercept(BlockDriverState *bs, >> qemu_co_queue_next(&bs->throttled_reqs); >> } >> >> +/* check if the image was cleanly shut down */ >> +bool bdrv_not_cleanly_down(BlockDriverState *bs) > > The name is a little cryptic to me and I suggest avoiding 'not' in > function names because it easily leads to double-negatives (!not_foo()). > > How about: > > bool bdrv_was_shutdown_cleanly() > > if (!bdrv_was_shutdown_cleanly(bs)) { > printf(...); > } > > This patch and the QED patch look fine otherwise. Should we rather add a new field to BlockDriverInfo and use the existing bdrv_get_info() function? Kevin