On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:03:33PM -0500, John Ferlan wrote: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270709 > > When a volume wipe is successful, perform a volume refresh afterwards to > update any volume data that may be used in future volume commands, such as > volume resize. For a raw file volume, a wipe could truncate the file and > a followup volume resize the capacity may fail because the volume target > allocation isn't updated to reflect the wipe activity. > > Since the documentation doesn't mention this side effect of the zero > algorithm for a raw file volume, update the various documentation to > describe the results. > The documentation does not belong in this patch. Also, we could intentionally keep it vague so that we don't have to commit to that behavior. > Signed-off-by: John Ferlan <jferlan@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > v1: > http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2015-December/msg00085.html > > Changes since v1: > * Use the preferred call format from review > * Cause error if refreshVol fails If my patch adjusting the return value gets pushed before this one: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2015-December/msg00467.html that change is just cosmetic. Otherwise, I don't think a patch adding refreshVol should be changing the return value. Jan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list