On Tue 14 Nov 2017 04:09:16 PM CET, Max Reitz wrote:
>>> +static inline const char *qcow2_cache_get_name(BDRVQcow2State *s,
>>> Qcow2Cache *c)
>>> +{
>>> + if (c == s->refcount_block_cache) {
>>> + return "refcount block";
>>> + } else if (c == s->l2_table_cache) {
>>> + return "L2 table";
>>> + } else {
>>> + /* Do not abort, because this is not critical */
>>> + return "unknown";
>>> + }
>>> +}
>>
>> Why is an unknown cache not critical?
>
> Because this is debugging information.
Ah, right, this is only used for qcow2_signal_corruption().
> I know others disagree with my opinion that I'd rather not abort qemu
> just because someone forgot to add a 'return "foo";' here when adding
> a new cache, but that's my opinion so I wanted to at least be told by
> someone that we should abort here before doing it.
I just checked the code and at least qcow2_cache_entry_flush() assumes
that there can be other caches, so this problem is not new.
Perhaps we should rethink this in the future and add a stronger
assertion somewhere else instead of having dead code, but for now this
is OK I guess.
Reviewed-by: Alberto Garcia <[email protected]>
Berto
