From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51421) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YG9g0-00056n-0J for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:11:44 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YG9fu-0005nS-L9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:11:43 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:55885) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YG9fu-0005nE-Cm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:11:38 -0500 Message-ID: <54C7C6C6.2030708@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:11:34 -0500 From: Max Reitz MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1422284444-12529-1-git-send-email-mreitz@redhat.com> <1422284444-12529-11-git-send-email-mreitz@redhat.com> <54C7C40C.8040601@redhat.com> <54C7C524.4030509@redhat.com> <54C7C682.2080609@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <54C7C682.2080609@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 10/14] qemu-io: Remove "growable" option List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Kevin Wolf , Markus Armbruster , Stefan Hajnoczi , Stefano Stabellini On 2015-01-27 at 12:10, Eric Blake wrote: > On 01/27/2015 10:04 AM, Max Reitz wrote: >> On 2015-01-27 at 11:59, Eric Blake wrote: >>> On 01/26/2015 08:00 AM, Max Reitz wrote: >>>> Remove "growable" option from the "open" command and from the qemu-io >>>> command line. qemu-io is about to be converted to BlockBackend which >>>> will make sure that no request exceeds the image size, so the only way >>>> to keep "growable" would be to use BlockBackend if it is not given and >>>> to directly access the BDS if it is. >>>> >>>> qemu-io is a debugging tool, therefore removing a rarely used option >>>> will have only a very small impact, if any. There was only one >>>> qemu-iotest which used the option; since it is not critical, this patch >>>> just removes it. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz >>>> --- >>> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake >>> >>> Do we want to ever reuse the test number that you are deleting? >> Good question, I think I have talked about that with Kevin before. It >> would not hurt too much if we were to accidentally reuse the test case >> number, most certainly not here in upstream. >> >> However, for all downstream versions of qemu, this might make adding the >> new test 16 difficult; but certainly not impossible (if someone is >> affected by this issue, he/she can just use 999 or something). So we may >> want to keep in mind not to reuse number 16, but if someone does, so be it. > Is it worth a placeholder file that has a comment mentioning that the > test number is intentionally reserved (and if someone attempts to run, > always passes)? Seems good to me. It's a minor effort now and may avert some hassle later. Max