[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 1/4] block: Add bdrv_make_empty()
From: |
Max Reitz |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH 1/4] block: Add bdrv_make_empty() |
Date: |
Wed, 29 Apr 2020 09:39:39 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 |
On 28.04.20 16:21, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 28.04.2020 um 15:26 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
>> Right now, all users of bdrv_make_empty() call the BlockDriver method
>> directly. That is not only bad style, it is also wrong, unless the
>> caller has a BdrvChild with a WRITE permission.
>>
>> Introduce bdrv_make_empty() that verifies that it does.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <address@hidden>
>> ---
>> include/block/block.h | 1 +
>> block.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/block/block.h b/include/block/block.h
>> index b05995fe9c..d947fb4080 100644
>> --- a/include/block/block.h
>> +++ b/include/block/block.h
>> @@ -351,6 +351,7 @@ BlockMeasureInfo *bdrv_measure(BlockDriver *drv,
>> QemuOpts *opts,
>> void bdrv_get_geometry(BlockDriverState *bs, uint64_t *nb_sectors_ptr);
>> void bdrv_refresh_limits(BlockDriverState *bs, Error **errp);
>> int bdrv_commit(BlockDriverState *bs);
>> +int bdrv_make_empty(BdrvChild *c, Error **errp);
>> int bdrv_change_backing_file(BlockDriverState *bs,
>> const char *backing_file, const char *backing_fmt);
>> void bdrv_register(BlockDriver *bdrv);
>> diff --git a/block.c b/block.c
>> index 2e3905c99e..b0d5b98617 100644
>> --- a/block.c
>> +++ b/block.c
>> @@ -6791,3 +6791,26 @@ void bdrv_del_child(BlockDriverState *parent_bs,
>> BdrvChild *child, Error **errp)
>>
>> parent_bs->drv->bdrv_del_child(parent_bs, child, errp);
>> }
>> +
>> +int bdrv_make_empty(BdrvChild *c, Error **errp)
>> +{
>> + BlockDriver *drv = c->bs->drv;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + assert(c->perm & BLK_PERM_WRITE);
>
> If I understand correctly, bdrv_make_empty() is called to drop an
> overlay whose content is identical to what it would read from its
> backing file (in particular after a commit operation). This means that
> the caller promises that the visible content doesn't change.
>
> So should we check BLK_PERM_WRITE_UNCHANGED instead?
Ah, right. Yes, that would be better. (Or to check both, whether any
of them has been taken.)
Max
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Re: [PATCH 3/4] block: Add blk_make_empty(), (continued)
Re: [PATCH 1/4] block: Add bdrv_make_empty(), Kevin Wolf, 2020/04/28
- Re: [PATCH 1/4] block: Add bdrv_make_empty(),
Max Reitz <=
[PATCH 4/4] block: Use blk_make_empty() after commits, Max Reitz, 2020/04/28
Re: [PATCH 0/4] block: Do not call BlockDriver.bdrv_make_empty() directly, no-reply, 2020/04/28
Re: [PATCH 0/4] block: Do not call BlockDriver.bdrv_make_empty() directly, no-reply, 2020/04/28
Re: [PATCH 0/4] block: Do not call BlockDriver.bdrv_make_empty() directly, Eric Blake, 2020/04/28