On Thu, 12/17 09:21, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 17.12.2015 um 06:09 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben: > > Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng <f...@redhat.com> > > --- > > tests/qemu-iotests/094 | 4 +--- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tests/qemu-iotests/094 b/tests/qemu-iotests/094 > > index 27a2be2..d30c78d 100755 > > --- a/tests/qemu-iotests/094 > > +++ b/tests/qemu-iotests/094 > > @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ > > #!/bin/bash > > # > > -# Test case for drive-mirror to NBD (especially bdrv_swap() on NBD BDS) > > +# Test case for drive-mirror to NBD > > # > > # Copyright (C) 2015 Red Hat, Inc. > > # > > @@ -50,8 +50,6 @@ _send_qemu_cmd $QEMU_HANDLE \ > > "{'execute': 'qmp_capabilities'}" \ > > 'return' > > > > -# 'format': 'nbd' is not actually "correct", but this is probably the only > > way > > -# to test bdrv_swap() on an NBD BDS > > _send_qemu_cmd $QEMU_HANDLE \ > > "{'execute': 'drive-mirror', > > 'arguments': {'device': 'src', > > Just completely removing the comment doesn't seem right to me if we > leave the "bad" option around. > > The test seems to be a regression test for what was fixed in commit > f53a829, i.e. a direct effect of bdrv_swap(). This effect can't exist > any more, so we would keep the test just for some additional coverage > for NBD. Do we still need 'format': 'nbd' (if so, with a comment why we > do that) or should we make it 'raw' now? >
I prefer keeping it as is, because making it raw would spoil the purpose as a regression test (the fix was on nbd). Can we re-comment it as below? # 'format': 'nbd' is not actually "correct", but this was the only way to # test the bug fixed in commit f53a829. Though the bug's related code # bdrv_swap() was replaced later, let's make sure we don't fall in the same # pit again. Fam