Am 07.06.2016 um 22:00 hat John Snow geschrieben: > > > On 06/07/2016 06:28 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > Am 06.06.2016 um 21:40 hat Colin Lord geschrieben: > >> This commit causes qmp_blockdev_change_medium to report an error if an > >> attempt is made to open a device with a locked tray. > > > > The old behaviour is that the command seemingly succeeds, but the medium > > isn't actually changed. Correct? > > > > Close. Old "change" command also fails, but with a confusing error. > > > Should this be mentioned in the commit message? You just describe what > > you change, but not why. > > > > Old behavior: > > - Change uses qmp_blockdev_open_tray, which "succeeds." > - Change then tries to use qmp_x_blockdev_remove_medium, but receives > potentially confusing error "Tray is locked." > - Moments later, the tray is likely now open.
Ah, yes, makes sense. This and that we want to have a less confusing error message is the part that is missing in the commit message. Kevin > New behavior: > > - Change uses do_open_tray, which returns -EINPROGRESS. > - Change can propagate this error upwards without attempting to remove > the medium. > - User gets "Device <foo> is locked and force was not specified, wait > for tray to open and try again" error. > > Why: "The new error tries to inform the user that there is an action > pending and that the command, if run again, may succeed." > > >> Signed-off-by: Colin Lord <cl...@redhat.com> > >> This is based off my previous patch regarding the do_open_tray function > >> (currently at v3). Probably should have been submitted as a patch set > >> but I wasn't thinking that far ahead when I submitted the first patch. > >> --- > >> blockdev.c | 7 +++++-- > >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > Yes, would probably have made sense as a series, but as long as it's > > only two patches, it's not really a problem. > > > > Please make sure to put such comments below the "---" line, though, i.e. > > comments that make sense for the review, but not as part of the commit > > log. Then git-am automatically removes that part from the commit message > > while applying the patch. I did it manually for this one now. > > > > Kevin > > > > -- > —js