On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:54:50AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 07/25/2012 06:21 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > This tests establishes the basic post-conditions of the qcow2 lazy > > refcounts features: > > > > 1. If the image was closed normally, it is marked clean. > > > > 2. If an allocating write was performed and the image was not close > > normally, then it is marked dirty. > > > > a. Written data can be read back successfully. > > b. The image file can be repaired and will be marked clean again. > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > +++ b/tests/qemu-iotests/039 > > @@ -0,0 +1,117 @@ > > +#!/bin/bash > > Since you are assuming bash (and even if you were to assume POSIX > /bin/sh)... > > > + > > +seq=`basename $0` > > I prefer $() over ``. > > > +echo "QA output created by $seq" > > + > > +here=`pwd` > > POSIX (and therefore bash) guarantees that $PWD is sane, and faster to > access than $(pwd). > > > +tmp=/tmp/$$ > > That's not very secure. It may be worth using bash's $RANDOM, or using > mkstemp(1). > > Beyond that, the series seemed reasonable to me.
All qemu-iotests scripts do these things in the same way and I'd like for them to be consistent. If we make these changes they should be applied to all qemu-iotests scripts. I agree with your points but also think the value in making the change now is small. Do you want to send a patch that fixes these issues in qemu-iotests? The general shell scripting style used there is quite old school and makes use of backquotes often. Stefan
