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

[Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>]

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?

Kevin