Re: [PATCH for-5.1?] qapi/block-core.json: Remove stale description of 'blockdev-add'

[Eric Blake]

On 7/28/20 9:32 AM, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
> On a 'qemu-discuss' thread[1], Kevin identifies that the current doc
> blurb for @blockdev-add is stale:
>
>      This is actually a documentation bug. @id doesn't exist,
>      blockdev-add never creates a BlockBackend. This was different in the
>      very first versions of the patches to add blockdev-add and we
>      probably just forgot to update the documentation after removing it.
>
> So remove the stale bits.
>
> And the requirement for 'node-name' is already mentioned in the
> documentation of @BlockdevOptions:
>
>      [...]
>      # @node-name: the node name of the new node (Since 2.0).
>      #             This option is required on the top level of blockdev-add.
>      #             Valid node names start with an alphabetic character and may
>      #             contain only alphanumeric characters, '-', '.' and '_'. Their
>      #             maximum length is 31 characters.
>      [...]
>
> [1] https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-discuss/2020-07/msg00071.html
>      -- equivalent to "-drive if=ide,id=disk0....."
>
> Signed-off-by: Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@redhat.com>
> Identified-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>

This would be our first use of this unusual tag name; more typical is 
Suggested-by or Reported-by.

Is it worth a 'Fixes: be4b67bc7d' line?

> ---
>   qapi/block-core.json | 4 +---
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/qapi/block-core.json b/qapi/block-core.json
> index 463ffd83da..3575d73ebf 100644
> --- a/qapi/block-core.json
> +++ b/qapi/block-core.json
> @@ -4049,9 +4049,7 @@
>   ##
>   # @blockdev-add:
>   #
> -# Creates a new block device. If the @id option is given at the top level, a
> -# BlockBackend will be created; otherwise, @node-name is mandatory at the top
> -# level and no BlockBackend will be created.
> +# Creates a new block device.

Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>

As a doc fix, it is safe for 5.1, but given the timing of -rc2 today, 
it's also okay if it slips into 5.2.

--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3226
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org