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 <mre...@redhat.com> > >>>>--- > >>>Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@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
