Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 10/14] qemu-io: Remove "growable" option

[Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>]

On 2015-02-02 at 14:36, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 27.01.2015 um 18:11 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
>> 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 <mreitz@redhat.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
> How about just keeping a comment line in group?

Oh, that would be too simple.

Or maybe just simple enough for me; yes, that seems nicer indeed.

Max