Re: [RFC PATCH v2 12/26] qcow2: Handle QCOW2_CLUSTER_UNALLOCATED_SUBCLUSTER

[Max Reitz]

On 04.11.19 14:03, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> On Mon 04 Nov 2019 01:57:42 PM CET, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 26.10.19 23:25, Alberto Garcia wrote:
>>> In the previous patch we added a new QCow2ClusterType named
>>> QCOW2_CLUSTER_UNALLOCATED_SUBCLUSTER. There is a couple of places
>>> where this new value needs to be handled, and that is what this patch
>>> does.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alberto Garcia <address@hidden>
>>> ---
>>>  block/qcow2.c | 13 +++++++++----
>>>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> This patch deals with everything in qcow2.c.  There are more places that
>> reference QCOW2_CLUSTER_* constants elsewhere, and I suppose most of
>> them are handled by the following patches.
>>
>> But I wonder what the criterion is on where it needs to be handled and
>> where it’s OK not to.  Right now it looks to me like it’s a bit
>> arbitrary maybe?  But I suppose I’ll just have to wait until after the
>> next patches.
> 
> This is the part of the series that I'm the least happy about, because
> the existing qcow2_get_cluster_type() can never return this new value, I
> only updated the cases where this can actually happen.
> 
> I'm still considering a different approach for this.
I still don’t know what you’re doing in the later patches, but to me it
looks a bit like you don’t dare breaking up the existing structure that
just deals with clusters.

If that is so, I think it will help to make a clear cut between what
concerns subclusters and what concerns clusters at a whole.
QCOW2_CLUSTER_UNALLOCATED_SUBCLUSTER shouldn’t be in QCow2ClusterType;
there should be a separate QCow2SubclusterType.

OTOH, that would require more modifications, but (naïvely) I believe
that would make for the cleaner interface in the end.

Max

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature