From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42074) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XML5U-0006hN-Df for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:03:26 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XML5O-0004FE-2J for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:03:20 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:21473) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XML5N-0004EW-Pq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:03:13 -0400 Message-ID: <53FCCBD7.6040504@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 20:03:03 +0200 From: Max Reitz MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1408725104-17176-1-git-send-email-mreitz@redhat.com> <1408725104-17176-10-git-send-email-mreitz@redhat.com> <53FC86ED.7090901@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <53FC86ED.7090901@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 09/10] iotests: Fix test outputs List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Kevin Wolf , =?UTF-8?B?QmVub8OudCBDYW5ldA==?= , Stefan Hajnoczi On 26.08.2014 15:09, Eric Blake wrote: > On 08/22/2014 10:31 AM, Max Reitz wrote: >> 039, 060 and 061 all create images with referenced clusters having a >> refcount of 0. Because previous commits changed handling of such error= s, >> these tests now have a different output. Fix it. >> >> Furthermore, 060 created a refblock with a refcount greater than one >> which now results in having to rebuild the refcount structure as well. > For bisection purposes, should these test tweaks be made in the same > patch that causes the improved behavior? We could do that, but patch 6 changed the behavior to "Report an error=20 instead of trying to fix it", 7 then changed it to "Fix it, but leave=20 leaks behind" and finally 8 changed it to "Fix it and fix the leaks". It=20 would be possible to add these changes to each of these patches, but it=20 would look pretty strange in my opinion. Beno=C3=AEt commented on this in patch 5 in v1 (which is patch 6 here). I= =20 replied to this in the cover letter of v2: I don't think it really=20 breaks bisects because the tests were kind of faulty before this series=20 anyway. They assumed qcow2's repair function would repair blocks with a=20 refcount of 0 by simply increasing the refcount through the standard=20 qcow2 functions, which, as this patch 10 shows, will not always work as=20 intended. Max