Am 17.06.2013 um 16:59 hat Luiz Capitulino geschrieben: > On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:49:11 +0200 > Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > Am 17.06.2013 um 15:51 hat Luiz Capitulino geschrieben: > > > On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:46:52 +0200 > > > Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Am 17.06.2013 um 15:38 hat Pavel Hrdina geschrieben: > > > > > >>>>>It's just a warning, that you used a password for a block device > > > > > >>>>>that > > > > > >>>>>doesn't require it. The device is opened successfully and should > > > > > >>>>>be > > > > > >>>>>handled correctly (call the bdrv_dev_change_media_cb() ). > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>Yep, IMO it's worth a comment that this isn't an "error" just a > > > > > >>>>"warning". > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>Actually, you can't have such a warning in QMP. You either fail or > > > > > >>>you > > > > > >>>succeed. We should just do what the current code does. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>This is the same logic as the old one. The device is loaded but the > > > > > >>error is emitted. > > > > > > > > > > > >That's a bug if the operation succeeded. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In that case, how do you think, that we should handle the situation > > > > > that user is trying to open device that isn't require the password, > > > > > but > > > > > user will provide the password? > > > > > > > > > > I don't think that we should fail and abort that operation. > > > > > > > > I think we should. The image and the options passed for it don't fit > > > > together, this is an error condition. Probably the user meant to pass a > > > > different image. > > > > > > I agree in principle, but I fear this might be an incompatible change as > > > there might be clients out there assuming the VM is up and running > > > (because > > > it's what ends up happening). > > > > > > Thinking about this again though, the client does get an error... > > > > Do you think any client is sending passwords for unencrypted images? > > Because if there is none (and I think we have reason to believe so), we > > don't break anything if we change the behaviour. And if something > > does break, we have uncovered a management tool bug, so that's not too > > bad either. > > Yes, I agree. I was being overly cautious when I suggested dropping the > error, but I think you're right: we do send an error, so a well written > client should just fail and shouldn't brake if we do the right thing. > > So let's do the Right Thing, but I also suggest to do this in a separate > commit so that it's easy to spot.
Sure, I agree with one patch per logical change. Kevin
