From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53551) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YIMnG-0000e5-Ry for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 14:36:26 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YIMnB-00054J-Ox for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 14:36:22 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56810) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YIMnB-00054E-HZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 14:36:17 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 20:36:02 +0100 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20150202193602.GF19586@noname.redhat.com> 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> <54C7C6C6.2030708@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54C7C6C6.2030708@redhat.com> 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: Max Reitz Cc: Stefano Stabellini , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , Markus Armbruster 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 > >>>>--- > >>>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. How about just keeping a comment line in group? Kevin