Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5] raw-posix.c: Make physical devices usable in QEMU under Mac OS X host

[Programmingkid <programmingkidx@gmail.com>]

On Nov 20, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:

> Am 27.07.2015 um 19:05 hat Programmingkid geschrieben:
>> Mac OS X can be picky when it comes to allowing the user to use physical
>> devices
>> in QEMU. Most mounted volumes appear to be off limits to QEMU. If an issue is
>> detected, a message is displayed showing the user how to unmount a volume.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: John Arbuckle <programmingkidx@gmail.com>
>> 
>> ---
>> Removed changes to GetBSDPath() to a separate patch.
>> This patch now depends on the GetBSDPath patch.
> 
> Unfortunately, this patch was sent as HTML, so git am doesn't accept it.
> I tried to manually get something working out of it, but I failed.
> Possibly there are actual merge conflicts, too (even going back to
> master@{2015-07-27}), but in any case I couldn't apply this.
> 
> Can you please rebase and send as a plain text patch that applies to
> current master?

Sorry for the HTML. This patch has been fixed and sent in.

> 
>> @@ -2156,7 +2180,21 @@ static int hdev_open(BlockDriverState *bs, QDict
>> *options, int flags,
>>         if (local_err) {
>>             error_propagate(errp, local_err);
>>         }
>> -        return ret;
>> +    }
>> +
>> +#if defined(__APPLE__) && defined(__MACH__)
>> +    /* if a physical device experienced an error while being opened */
>> +    if (strncmp(filename, "/dev/", 5) == 0 && (cdromOK == false || ret != 0))
>> {
>> +        printf("If device %s is mounted on the desktop, unmount it"
>> +                        " first before using it in QEMU.\n", filename);
>> +        printf("Command to unmount device: diskutil unmountDisk %s\n",
>> +                                                                    filename);
>> +        printf("Command to mount device: diskutil mountDisk %s\n", filename);
>> +    }
>> +#endif /* defined(__APPLE__) && defined(__MACH__) */
>> +
>> +    if (ret < 0) {
>> +       return ret;
>>     }
> 
> Why don't you simply include the #ifdef block in the first if (ret < 0)?
> Or does ret > 0 happen and the message must be displayed for it?

ret > 0 could happen and a message should be displayed for it.