From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50125) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a9dtc-0007Lm-Nu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:07:25 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a9dtc-0003if-1z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:07:24 -0500 Sender: Paolo Bonzini References: <1450328956-25224-1-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com> <1450328956-25224-3-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com> <20151217082134.GA5874@noname.redhat.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <567307E0.4040708@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:07:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151217082134.GA5874@noname.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] iotests: Don't mention bdrv_swap in comments List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf , Fam Zheng Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org On 17/12/2015 09:21, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> > -# 'format': 'nbd' is not actually "correct", but this is probably the only way >> > -# to test bdrv_swap() on an NBD BDS >> > _send_qemu_cmd $QEMU_HANDLE \ >> > "{'execute': 'drive-mirror', >> > 'arguments': {'device': 'src', > Just completely removing the comment doesn't seem right to me if we > leave the "bad" option around. > > The test seems to be a regression test for what was fixed in commit > f53a829, i.e. a direct effect of bdrv_swap(). This effect can't exist > any more, so we would keep the test just for some additional coverage > for NBD. Do we still need 'format': 'nbd' (if so, with a comment why we > do that) or should we make it 'raw' now? Some coverage of no-format BDSes is nice to have, since raw is sometimes measurably slower than no format at all. Paolo