From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:60231) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TvoJ1-0007ic-Jf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 07:10:52 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TvoJ0-0006Am-7J for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 07:10:51 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:22885) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TvoIz-0006Ae-SY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 07:10:50 -0500 Message-ID: <50F7EA34.9020008@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:10:28 +0100 From: Kevin Wolf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1355580573-19323-1-git-send-email-sw@weilnetz.de> <50F6F72F.2010405@weilnetz.de> <20130117083320.GA19607@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20130117083320.GA19607@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Hajnoczi Cc: Stefan Weil , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Am 17.01.2013 09:33, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi: > 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? Yes, I commented on the patches. I think the minimum that should change is moving the error code definition to where other error codes are defined in order to avoid future collisions. Ideally we'd convert bdrv_open to Error and avoid all this error code stuff, but I'm not requesting this now. Kevin