From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58272) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XgxDk-00025K-D0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:49:10 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XgxDd-0004X1-GN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:49:04 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:55153) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XgxDd-0004Wr-8C for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:48:57 -0400 Message-ID: <5447C3D3.3040608@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:48:51 +0200 From: Max Reitz MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1413984271-15471-1-git-send-email-mreitz@redhat.com> <1413984271-15471-4-git-send-email-mreitz@redhat.com> <20141022135112.GO3188@noname.str.redhat.com> <5447B71E.1080701@redhat.com> <5447C3A0.40009@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5447C3A0.40009@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] iotests: Add test for map commands List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , =?windows-1252?Q?Beno=EEt_Canet?= On 2014-10-22 at 16:48, Max Reitz wrote: > On 2014-10-22 at 15:54, Max Reitz wrote: >> On 2014-10-22 at 15:51, Kevin Wolf wrote: >>> Am 22.10.2014 um 15:24 hat Max Reitz geschrieben: >>>> Add a test for qemu-img map and qemu-io -c map on truncated files. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz >>> Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf >>> >>> But how about adding a case for patch 2, too? Or is that one mostly >>> theoretical (like the image file being modified in the background) and >>> not reproducible reliably? >> >> See the cover letter, I could not find a way to test patch 2 without >> triggering the changes introduced by patch 1. Yes, modifying the >> image in the background could be a way to do this. I could try, but I >> don't know if we really need a test for it. >> >> I'll give myself a couple of minutes and if it doesn't work, well, >> then this test stays the same in v3. > > And I just realized that my series "raw-posix: Fix > raw_co_get_block_status()" contains exactly such a test, which is also > the reason why it doesn't work without this series. And now I realized I hadn't sent out the latest version of that series, which includes this test, yet. Will do. Max