From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44460)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1THFPv-0000zt-2x
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:50:26 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1THFPo-0008BV-9R
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:50:19 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:65432)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1THFPo-0008Av-0D
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:50:12 -0400
Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8REo8Qk008189
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:50:10 -0400
Message-ID: <5064679D.5060603@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:50:05 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1348675011-8794-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<1348675011-8794-15-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<50645785.3020600@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <50645785.3020600@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 14/45] block: introduce block job error
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: jcody@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Il 27/09/2012 15:41, Kevin Wolf ha scritto:
>> > +BlockErrorAction block_job_error_action(BlockJob *job, BlockDriverState *bs,
>> > +                                        BlockdevOnError on_err,
>> > +                                        int is_read, int error)
>> > +{
>> > +    BlockErrorAction action;
>> > +
>> > +    switch (on_err) {
>> > +    case BLOCKDEV_ON_ERROR_ENOSPC:
>> > +        action = (error == ENOSPC) ? BDRV_ACTION_STOP : BDRV_ACTION_REPORT;
>> > +        break;
>> > +    case BLOCKDEV_ON_ERROR_STOP:
>> > +        action = BDRV_ACTION_STOP;
>> > +        break;
>> > +    case BLOCKDEV_ON_ERROR_REPORT:
>> > +        action = BDRV_ACTION_REPORT;
>> > +        break;
>> > +    case BLOCKDEV_ON_ERROR_IGNORE:
>> > +        action = BDRV_ACTION_IGNORE;
>> > +        break;
>> > +    default:
>> > +        abort();
>> > +    }
> Isn't this a duplication of bdrv_get_error_action()?

bdrv_get_error_action() has this:

BlockdevOnError on_err = is_read ? bs->on_read_error : bs->on_write_error;

It can use some refactoring to commonize the switch statement, but
it's not a direct replacement.

Paolo