From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38285) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ddGFb-0001Uq-97 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Aug 2017 09:33:20 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ddGFa-0007ff-Cd for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Aug 2017 09:33:19 -0400 Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 15:32:58 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20170803133258.GI4456@dhcp-200-186.str.redhat.com> References: <20170731095443.28211-1-el13635@mail.ntua.gr> <20170731095443.28211-8-el13635@mail.ntua.gr> <20170803080750.GB4456@dhcp-200-186.str.redhat.com> <20170803132455.bth53wkxr35imfhd@postretch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="fOHHtNG4YXGJ0yqR" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170803132455.bth53wkxr35imfhd@postretch> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 7/7] block: add throttle block filter driver interface tests List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Manos Pitsidianakis , qemu-devel , Stefan Hajnoczi , Alberto Garcia , qemu-block --fOHHtNG4YXGJ0yqR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am 03.08.2017 um 15:24 hat Manos Pitsidianakis geschrieben: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:07:50AM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > Am 31.07.2017 um 11:54 hat Manos Pitsidianakis geschrieben: > > > Signed-off-by: Manos Pitsidianakis > >=20 > > I would add at least two more cases: > >=20 > > * Both limits and throttle-group are given in blockdev-add > This exists in the "property changes in ThrottleGroup" section, You're right, I missed this. The test result shows that this command succeeds. Do we really want to allow other nodes to be affected with a blockdev-add? Wouldn't it be cleaner to just forbid the combination of limits and throtte-group? > > * limits and throttle-group are both missing > this creates an anonymous group with no limits. Should we fail at this ca= se? I'm not sure, you could argue either way. But there should be a test to check that the semantics won't change. If we're going with Stefan's suggestion that anonymous groups shouldn't exist, then the question is moot anyway. > > It would also be nice to test that query-block reflects the new throttle > > group limits correctly when they are changed after the fact. >=20 > This belongs to the remove legacy patch, since query-block displays the > legacy limits. Ok, fair enough. Kevin --fOHHtNG4YXGJ0yqR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJZgyYKAAoJEH8JsnLIjy/WgmkQAKYsfjuL4YlopXaAasB6ajW1 MHjw3XE1bNEWQQlfYcU9zirXg3y0Y/EGat3gk6A0CVGMPV6vBjkdVsaTPCLGCDOS rbR9P22bY08snF/x867lcUgGKivKsJp6eXFC2bCe+rPVurDTXt3/oG6XoTvJ3N0N rgZ29hUHaIycuAhX92EratNPoGhPACYcRQHp+/sHHz9m5yD4x7RLlSV/UWcxOgwx WT+MJj8K8dprgOdsMJtWUD111XSry+RDN/wI2xEQa1IMRt7nicTDuYIoGJelUfHl 6Bly4RwCzLSMbMBeoBoUp7RYwcwobTIHAz7GyJHhOdYOruirLmwsfxV/KEqwxliv d0WYUZFz/C7Cfb4QxRGQu2B3xZbo0MSZy6KsUrf2iFKbp5iyMy/SlnFL2/oWzOAU HyjOB9N0hVaIjO294G8zpcYE0pjPf8Ipe4efbNokGQiZTPqwJXSA99qMF3/VkboW zLQ/2d2fkOOzJrDqH/xI7zSYtosR/gYhxpek3+ZhDaklZbaJ+coCstZRPfq2iusT bPYKdAq9zLPl2LhCXnV/E2gywF4BNPu9TLzJmd71WiFhb4k2yYbTVa5NfxbD1kIf YEs6AOXpBWLmhbWEqo/ypaMxnC6lGN+XkhFPHulIyvbUiEWaL60foCVoVoLVhSIc 8cZFJ7G7Wm3Kx80DPlPk =prSW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --fOHHtNG4YXGJ0yqR--