Am 10.07.2020 um 14:33 hat Peter Maydell geschrieben: > On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 13:17, Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > QEMU 2.11 introduced the --shrink option for qemu-img resize to avoid > > accidentally shrinking images (commit 4ffca8904a3). However, for > > compatibility reasons, it was not enforced for raw images yet, but only > > a deprecation warning was printed. This warning has existed for long > > enough that we can now finally require --shrink for raw images, too, and > > error out if it's not given. > > > > Documentation already describes the state as it is after this patch. > > > > Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> > > --- > > qemu-img.c | 17 +++-------------- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/qemu-img.c b/qemu-img.c > > index e3b2ec3e78..f6a2703039 100644 > > --- a/qemu-img.c > > +++ b/qemu-img.c > > @@ -4011,20 +4011,9 @@ static int img_resize(int argc, char **argv) > > } > > > > if (total_size < current_size && !shrink) { > > - warn_report("Shrinking an image will delete all data beyond the " > > - "shrunken image's end. Before performing such an " > > - "operation, make sure there is no important data > > there."); > > - > > - if (g_strcmp0(bdrv_get_format_name(blk_bs(blk)), "raw") != 0) { > > - error_report( > > - "Use the --shrink option to perform a shrink operation."); > > - ret = -1; > > - goto out; > > - } else { > > - warn_report("Using the --shrink option will suppress this > > message. " > > - "Note that future versions of qemu-img may refuse > > to " > > - "shrink images without this option."); > > - } > > + error_report("Use the --shrink option to perform a shrink > > operation."); > > I think it would be nice to retain this bit of text: > > > - warn_report("Shrinking an image will delete all data beyond the " > > - "shrunken image's end. Before performing such an " > > - "operation, make sure there is no important data > > there."); > > ie, make the raw-shrink case be the same as the non-raw-shrink > case currently does.
I had this at first, but then the whole thing looked like a warning and I wasn't sure that it would still be understood as an error. (Which is of course a preexisting problem for non-raw.) Maybe it becomes clearer if I just swap the order and print the error first and only then the warning? Kevin