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. 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