|
From: | Max Reitz |
Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qemu-img: Print error if check failed |
Date: | Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:59:02 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 |
On 2014-10-23 at 15:51, Eric Blake wrote:
On 10/23/2014 07:29 AM, Max Reitz wrote:Currently, if bdrv_check() fails either by returning -errno or having check_errors set, qemu-img check just exits with 1 after having told the user that there were no errors on the image. This is bad. Instead of printing the check result if there were internal errors which were so bad that bdrv_check() could not even complete with 0 as a return value, qemu-img check should inform the user about the error.Is there a way to exercise this in the testsuite?
It would involve some blkdebug things which try to break the qcow2 check function. I wouldn't rely on it, because this rather exercises the qcow2 check function than this patch.
Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <address@hidden> --- qemu-img.c | 21 ++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/qemu-img.c b/qemu-img.c index 09e7e72..731502c 100644 --- a/qemu-img.c +++ b/qemu-img.c @@ -687,16 +687,23 @@ static int img_check(int argc, char **argv) check->corruptions_fixed = corruptions_fixed; }- switch (output_format) {- case OFORMAT_HUMAN: - dump_human_image_check(check, quiet); - break; - case OFORMAT_JSON: - dump_json_image_check(check, quiet); - break; + if (!ret) { + switch (output_format) { + case OFORMAT_HUMAN: + dump_human_image_check(check, quiet); + break; + case OFORMAT_JSON: + dump_json_image_check(check, quiet); + break; + } }if (ret || check->check_errors) {Can we ever have ret == 0 (so we attempted dump_*_image_check) AND check->check_errors? Will that be confusing output, to have both a (probably incorrect) dump on stdout and an error message on stderr?
Yes, I think we can. I interpreted that as "Test completed, but there were errors". The dump should not be incorrect, because if it was, the check function should not have returned 0.
Therefore, I think we should dump the test result because by returning 0 the check function says it's valid. If there were check_errors, the dump function will show their number, too.
Max
+ if (ret) { + error_report("Check failed: %s", strerror(-ret)); + } else { + error_report("Check failed"); + } ret = 1; goto fail; }Or rephrasing the question, would it be better to hoist this chunk to occur before the switch (output_format)? And if so, then you don't need to reindent that code inside 'if (!ret)'.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |