On 14.08.19 22:22, Maxim Levitsky wrote: [...]
> Testing. This was lightly tested with manual testing and with few iotests > that I prepared. > I haven't yet tested fully the write sharing behavior, nor did I run the > whole iotests > suite to see if this code causes some regressions. Since I will need probably > to rewrite some chunks of it to change to 'amend' interface, I decided to > post it now, > to see if you have other ideas/comments to add. I can see that, because half of the qcow2 tests that contain the string “secret” break: Failures: 087 134 158 178 188 198 206 Failed 7 of 13 tests Also, 210 when run with -luks. Some are just due to different test outputs (because you change _filter_img_create to filter some encrypt.* parameters), but some of them are due to aborts. All of them look like different kinds of heap corruptions. I can fully understand not running all iotests (because only the maintainers do that before pull requests), but just running the iotests that immediately concern a series seems prudent to me (unless the series is trivial). (Just “(cd tests/qemu-iotests && grep -l secret ???)” tells you which tests to run that may concern themselves with qcow2 encryption, for example.) So I suppose I’ll stop reviewing the series in detail and just give a more cursory glance from now on. Max
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
