Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 for-2.4 0/3] block: Improve warnings for doubly-connected drives
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 12:49:31PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org writes: On 25 June 2015 at 10:26, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote: Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org writes: This patchset attempts to improve the warning and error messages for bad user command lines that attempt to connect a drive up to two devices. The motivation here is patch #4, which changes the default interface for the virt board to virtio. That will break some existing command lines which forgot to specify if=none, and so I would like us to at least diagnose that user error in a helpful way that points the user towards adding the missing if=none. With the commit message of PATCH 3 amended, series Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com Thanks. Do you want to take this through a block tree or are you happy for me to put it through target-arm.next? I'm fine with target-arm. Copying Stefan in the unlikely case he's not. Thanks, I'm happy with this series. Please take it through the arm tree. pgpNxjeQ95jWE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 for-2.4 0/3] block: Improve warnings for doubly-connected drives
Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org writes: On 25 June 2015 at 10:26, Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com wrote: Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org writes: This patchset attempts to improve the warning and error messages for bad user command lines that attempt to connect a drive up to two devices. The motivation here is patch #4, which changes the default interface for the virt board to virtio. That will break some existing command lines which forgot to specify if=none, and so I would like us to at least diagnose that user error in a helpful way that points the user towards adding the missing if=none. With the commit message of PATCH 3 amended, series Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com Thanks. Do you want to take this through a block tree or are you happy for me to put it through target-arm.next? I'm fine with target-arm. Copying Stefan in the unlikely case he's not.
Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 for-2.4 0/3] block: Improve warnings for doubly-connected drives
Peter Maydell peter.mayd...@linaro.org writes: This patchset attempts to improve the warning and error messages for bad user command lines that attempt to connect a drive up to two devices. The motivation here is patch #4, which changes the default interface for the virt board to virtio. That will break some existing command lines which forgot to specify if=none, and so I would like us to at least diagnose that user error in a helpful way that points the user towards adding the missing if=none. Version 2 reduces scope, because it turns out that it is harder than we thought to identify whether a use of an if=something drive is the auto-plugging or a manual wiring up to a device. So all we do here is improve the error messages for two situations which were already errors but with rather cryptic messages: (1) Drive specified as to be auto-connected and also manually connected (and the board does handle this if= type): qemu-system-x86_64 -nodefaults -display none \ -drive if=scsi,file=tmp.qcow2,id=foo -device ide-hd,drive=foo Previously: qemu-system-x86_64: -device ide-hd,drive=foo: Property 'ide-hd.drive' can't take value 'foo', it's in use Now: qemu-system-x86_64: -device ide-hd,drive=foo: Drive 'foo' is already in use because it has been automatically connected to another device (did you need 'if=none' in the drive options?) (2) Drive specified to be manually connected in two different ways: qemu-system-x86_64 -nodefaults -display none \ -drive if=none,file=tmp.qcow2,id=foo -device ide-hd,drive=foo \ -device ide-hd,drive=foo Previously: qemu-system-x86_64: -device ide-hd,drive=foo: Property 'ide-hd.drive' can't take value 'foo', it's in use Now: qemu-system-x86_64: -device ide-hd,drive=foo: Drive 'foo' is already in use by another device (We'll also produce message 1 in the oddball case where the user creates a drive if=something-not-handled-by-machine and then wires it up manually to two different devices; in this case their command line is doubly broken and if they use if=none as suggested by message 1 they'll then get message 2 and can fix their own double-usage...) With the commit message of PATCH 3 amended, series Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster arm...@redhat.com
