On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:46:22 -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
> On 06/06/2016 09:37 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 06:42:09 -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
> >> Since we support QEMU 0.12 and later, checking for support of specific flags
> >> added prior to that isn't necessary.
> >>
> >> Thus start with the base of having the "-o options" available for the
> >> qemu-img create option and then determine whether we have the compat
> >> option for qcow2 files (which would be necessary up through qemu 2.0
> >> where the default changes to compat 0.11).
> >>
> >> NOTE: Keeping old tests around since it's still possible to create in
> >> the old format.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: John Ferlan <jferlan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> src/storage/storage_backend.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++---------------------------
> >> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
[...]
> > So ... if the above is never set, why aren't you dropping this entire
> > case?
> >
>
> It wasn't clear if tests/storagevolxml2argvtest.c should then be
> removed, adjusted, or otherwise. It replicated the flags I put the X_ in
> front of as:
>
> enum {
> FMT_NONE = 0,
> FMT_FLAG,
> FMT_OPTIONS,
> FMT_COMPAT,
> };
>
>
> Whether we care or not to support/test all those old options was unclear
> to me. I would think at some point in time qemu-img would drop those in
I don't think it makes any sense to test options that we won't ever pass
to qemu-img so we can drop it.
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list