On 07/27/2016 04:37 PM, Max Reitz wrote: >> Now if you examine #1 drive_new(all_opts,block_default_type) you see, >> > there is no errp argument and if you examine the code you see that the >> > error from blockdev_init which gets propagated properly to this point >> > gets "handled" by error_report_err (in QMP context! so does not much >> > good on this code path). AFAIU this can not work. Or am I wrong? > drive_add is an HMP command. There's no other way for it to emit errors. > > Strictly speaking, HMP commands are not supposed to be used by > management applications like libvirt (the "H" stands for "human", after > all). QMP's "human-monitor-command" is just a workaround because there > are some HMP commands for which we do not have fully working QMP > replacements yet. One such example is indeed drive_add, because as > Markus correctly pointed out, blockdev-add is still considered experimental. > > So we're still in the awkward spot of only having a legacy command > (drive_add) and an experimental command (blockdev-add); and we have been > in that spot for quite a while now (more than two years, I think). I > think we're getting rather close to getting blockdev-add stable, but > then again I'm afraid that might be something we've been thinking for > the past two years. > > Max >
My primary concern was the function drive_new which does not propagate/report errors adequately under certain conditions, and although there are multiple usages of drive_new after looking into them I'm getting convinced that they are OK -- besides the one pointed out here. I read your comment as: "We are already working on this. It is best for you to ignore the problem.". Is my reading correct? If it is I can live with that. Thanks for the explanations. Cheers, Halil
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
