Re: [PATCH 02/14] qapi: fix example of BLOCK_IMAGE_CORRUPTED event

[Markus Armbruster]

John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com> writes:

> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 3:15 PM John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022, 1:50 PM Victor Toso <victortoso@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Fatal is not optional.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Victor Toso <victortoso@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>  qapi/block-core.json | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/qapi/block-core.json b/qapi/block-core.json
>>> index e89f2dfb5b..585a9e020e 100644
>>> --- a/qapi/block-core.json
>>> +++ b/qapi/block-core.json
>>> @@ -5008,7 +5008,7 @@
>>>  # <- { "event": "BLOCK_IMAGE_CORRUPTED",
>>>  #      "data": { "device": "ide0-hd0", "node-name": "node0",
>>>  #                "msg": "Prevented active L1 table overwrite", "offset": 
>>> 196608,
>>> -#                "size": 65536 },
>>> +#                "size": 65536, "fatal": false },
>>>  #      "timestamp": { "seconds": 1378126126, "microseconds": 966463 } }
>>>  #
>>>  # Since: 1.7
>>> --
>>> 2.35.1
>>
>>
>> Is this the correct fatality setting for this particular case? Default is 
>> implied to be true.
>
> (1) We don't seem to actually emit this particular message anymore. I
> don't think it exists in the tree.

I doubt we ever emitted it.

> (2) The only fatal=False messages I can see is
> "Cannot free unaligned cluster %#llx"
>
> (Try grepping for qcow2_signal_corruption)
>
> so maybe we should pick a new example that might really exist. iotest
> 060 seems to test this, so that can be used as a guide.

Yes, please.