On Thu, 2020-03-26 at 08:20 -0500, Eric Blake wrote: > On 3/25/20 8:12 PM, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > Instead of checking the .bdrv_co_create_opts to see if we need the failback, > > fallback 100% true. > > > just implement the .bdrv_co_create_opts in the drivers that need it. > > > > This way we don't break various places that need to know if the underlying > > protocol/format really supports image creation, and this way we still > > allow some drivers to not support image creation. > > > > Fixes: fd17146cd93d1704cd96d7c2757b325fc7aac6fd > > Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816007 > > > > Note that technically this driver reverts the image creation failback > > fallback > > > for the vxhs driver since I don't have a means to test it, > > and IMHO it is better to leave it not supported as it was prior to > > generic image creation patches. > > > > Also drop iscsi_create_opts which was left accidently > > accidentally True. I did a spell check on the commit message, but I guess I updated it afterward with this.
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevi...@redhat.com> > > --- > > +++ b/block/file-posix.c > > @@ -3513,6 +3513,8 @@ static BlockDriver bdrv_host_device = { > > .bdrv_reopen_prepare = raw_reopen_prepare, > > .bdrv_reopen_commit = raw_reopen_commit, > > .bdrv_reopen_abort = raw_reopen_abort, > > + .bdrv_co_create_opts = bdrv_co_create_opts_simple, > > + .create_opts = &bdrv_create_opts_simple, > > I'd drop the leading & for consistency with the rest of this struct > initializer. Can I? This is struct reference and I think that only for function references, the leading & is optional. Best regards, Maxim Levitsky