qemu-block
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v5 06/45] test-bdrv-graph-mod: fix filters to be filters


From: Hanna Reitz
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/45] test-bdrv-graph-mod: fix filters to be filters
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2022 13:22:39 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0

On 30.03.22 23:28, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
bdrv_pass_through is used as filter, even all node variables has
corresponding names. We want to append it, so it should be
backing-child-based filter like mirror_top.
So, in test_update_perm_tree, first child should be DATA, as we don't
want filters with two filtered children.

bdrv_exclusive_writer is used as a filter once. So it should be filter
anyway. We want to append it, so it should be backing-child-based
fitler too.

Make all FILTERED children to be PRIMARY as well. We are going to force
this rule by assertion soon.

Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@openvz.org>
---
  include/block/block_int-common.h |  5 +++--
  tests/unit/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++-------
  2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/block/block_int-common.h b/include/block/block_int-common.h
index 9d91ccbcbf..d68adc6ff3 100644
--- a/include/block/block_int-common.h
+++ b/include/block/block_int-common.h
@@ -122,8 +122,9 @@ struct BlockDriver {
      /*
       * Only make sense for filter drivers, for others must be false.
       * If true, filtered child is bs->backing. Otherwise it's bs->file.
-     * Only two internal filters use bs->backing as filtered child and has this
-     * field set to true: mirror_top and commit_top.
+     * Two internal filters use bs->backing as filtered child and has this
+     * field set to true: mirror_top and commit_top. There also two such test
+     * filters in tests/unit/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c.
       *
       * Never create any more such filters!

I mean, it’s just a test, of course, but it is kind of strange that you put this very strong imperative here just a couple of patches ago and now you disobey it. O:)

Makes sense, though.

Reviewed-by: Hanna Reitz <hreitz@redhat.com>




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]