Am 13.03.2012 10:33, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:03:51AM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> Am 12.03.2012 19:18, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi: >>> On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 05:22:58PM +0800, Dong Xu Wang wrote: >>>> From: Dong Xu Wang <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> Some block drivers can verify their image files are clean or not. So we >>>> can show >>>> it while using "qemu-img info. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Dong Xu Wang <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> block.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ >>>> block.h | 2 ++ >>>> block_int.h | 1 + >>>> qemu-img.c | 3 +++ >>>> 4 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/block.c b/block.c >>>> index 947607b..17e9ba8 100644 >>>> --- a/block.c >>>> +++ b/block.c >>>> @@ -193,6 +193,20 @@ static void bdrv_io_limits_intercept(BlockDriverState >>>> *bs, >>>> qemu_co_queue_next(&bs->throttled_reqs); >>>> } >>>> >>>> +/* check if the image was cleanly shut down */ >>>> +bool bdrv_not_cleanly_down(BlockDriverState *bs) >>> >>> The name is a little cryptic to me and I suggest avoiding 'not' in >>> function names because it easily leads to double-negatives (!not_foo()). >>> >>> How about: >>> >>> bool bdrv_was_shutdown_cleanly() >>> >>> if (!bdrv_was_shutdown_cleanly(bs)) { >>> printf(...); >>> } >>> >>> This patch and the QED patch look fine otherwise. >> >> Should we rather add a new field to BlockDriverInfo and use the existing >> bdrv_get_info() function? > > Yeah, that sounds good. In that case it's best to make the "clean" > value false and the "dirty" value true, so that block drivers that don't > care about this feature automatically report "clean". > > struct BlockDriverInfo { > bool is_dirty; > }
Yes, I agree. Kevin
