[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 30/42] qemu-img: Use child access functions
From: |
Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 30/42] qemu-img: Use child access functions |
Date: |
Fri, 26 Jul 2019 13:44:56 +0000 |
25.07.2019 19:34, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 24.07.19 11:54, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> 21.06.2019 16:15, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>>> 19.06.2019 18:49, Max Reitz wrote:
>>>> On 19.06.19 11:18, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>>>>> 13.06.2019 1:09, Max Reitz wrote:
>>>>>> This changes iotest 204's output, because blkdebug on top of a COW node
>>>>>> used to make qemu-img map disregard the rest of the backing chain (the
>>>>>> backing chain was broken by the filter). With this patch, the
>>>>>> allocation in the base image is reported correctly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <address@hidden>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> qemu-img.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>>>>>> tests/qemu-iotests/204.out | 1 +
>>>>>> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/qemu-img.c b/qemu-img.c
>>>>>> index 07b6e2a808..7bfa6e5d40 100644
>>>>>> --- a/qemu-img.c
>>>>>> +++ b/qemu-img.c
>>>>>> @@ -992,7 +992,7 @@ static int img_commit(int argc, char **argv)
>>>>>> if (!blk) {
>>>>>> return 1;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> - bs = blk_bs(blk);
>>>>>> + bs = bdrv_skip_implicit_filters(blk_bs(blk));
>>>>>
>>>>> if filename is json, describing explicit filter over normal node, bs will
>>>>> be
>>>>> explicit filter ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> qemu_progress_init(progress, 1.f);
>>>>>> qemu_progress_print(0.f, 100);
>>>>>> @@ -1009,7 +1009,7 @@ static int img_commit(int argc, char **argv)
>>>>>> /* This is different from QMP, which by default uses the
>>>>>> deepest file in
>>>>>> * the backing chain (i.e., the very base); however, the
>>>>>> traditional
>>>>>> * behavior of qemu-img commit is using the immediate
>>>>>> backing file. */
>>>>>> - base_bs = backing_bs(bs);
>>>>>> + base_bs = bdrv_filtered_cow_bs(bs);
>>>>>> if (!base_bs) {
>>>>>
>>>>> and here we'll fail.
>>>>
>>>> Right, will change to bdrv_backing_chain_next().
>>>>
>>>>>> error_setg(&local_err, "Image does not have a backing
>>>>>> file");
>>>>>> goto done;
>>>>>> @@ -1626,19 +1626,18 @@ static int
>>>>>> convert_iteration_sectors(ImgConvertState *s, int64_t sector_num)
>>>>>> if (s->sector_next_status <= sector_num) {
>>>>>> int64_t count = n * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE;
>>>>>> + BlockDriverState *src_bs = blk_bs(s->src[src_cur]);
>>>>>> + BlockDriverState *base;
>>>>>> if (s->target_has_backing) {
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> - ret = bdrv_block_status(blk_bs(s->src[src_cur]),
>>>>>> - (sector_num - src_cur_offset) *
>>>>>> - BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE,
>>>>>> - count, &count, NULL, NULL);
>>>>>> + base = bdrv_backing_chain_next(src_bs);
>>>>>
>>>>> As you described in another patch, will not we here get allocated in base
>>>>> as allocated, because of
>>>>> counting filters above base?
>>>>
>>>> Damn, yes. So
>>>>
>>>> base = bdrv_filtered_cow_bs(bdrv_skip_rw_filters(src_bs));
>>>>
>>>> I suppose.
>>>>
>>>>> Hmm. I now think, why filters don't report everything as unallocated,
>>>>> would not it be more correct
>>>>> than fallthrough to child?
>>>>
>>>> I don’t know, actually. Maybe, maybe not.
>>>>
>>>>>> } else {
>>>>>> - ret = bdrv_block_status_above(blk_bs(s->src[src_cur]), NULL,
>>>>>> - (sector_num - src_cur_offset)
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> - BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE,
>>>>>> - count, &count, NULL, NULL);
>>>>>> + base = NULL;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> + ret = bdrv_block_status_above(src_bs, base,
>>>>>> + (sector_num - src_cur_offset) *
>>>>>> + BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE,
>>>>>> + count, &count, NULL, NULL);
>>>>>> if (ret < 0) {
>>>>>> error_report("error while reading block status of sector
>>>>>> %" PRId64
>>>>>> ": %s", sector_num, strerror(-ret));
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -2949,7 +2950,7 @@ static int img_map(int argc, char **argv)
>>>>>> if (!blk) {
>>>>>> return 1;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> - bs = blk_bs(blk);
>>>>>> + bs = bdrv_skip_implicit_filters(blk_bs(blk));
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm, another thought about implicit filters, how they could be here in
>>>>> qemu-img?
>>>>
>>>> Hm, I don’t think they can.
>>>>
>>>>> If implicit are only
>>>>> job filters. Do you prepared it for implicit COR? But we discussed with
>>>>> Kevin that we'd better deprecate
>>>>> copy-on-read option..
>>>>>
>>>>> So, if implicit filters are for compatibility, we'll have them only in
>>>>> block-jobs. So, seems no reason to support
>>>>> them in qemu-img.
>>>>
>>>> Seems reasonable, yes.
>>>>
>>>>> Also, in block-jobs, we can abandon creating implicit filters above any
>>>>> filter nodes, as well as abandon creating any
>>>>> filter nodes above implicit filters. This will still support old
>>>>> scenarios, but gives very simple and well defined scope
>>>>> of using implicit filters and how to work with them. What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Hm, in what way would that make things simpler?
>>>>
>>>
>>> This question was in my mind while I've finishing this paragraph) At least
>>> such restriction answer the question, where
>>> should new filters be added: below or under implicit filters.. With such
>>> restriction we always can have only one implicit filter
>>> over non-filter node, and above it should be explicit filter or non-filter
>>> node. But this need huge work to be done with small
>>> benefit, so, forget it)
>
> OK. I should have read the last part first, then I could have replied
> sooner. :-)
>
>> Strange, I have this mail automatically returned back. Did you receive it?
>
> No, I didn’t. (Nor any of the other mails you resent.) Weird.
Interesting that it reached mailing list and presents in archive.
>
> Also, welcome back, congratulations, and all the best to your family! :-)
>
Thank you!
--
Best regards,
Vladimir