[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 4/4] block: Use blk_make_empty() after commits
From: |
Max Reitz |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH 4/4] block: Use blk_make_empty() after commits |
Date: |
Wed, 29 Apr 2020 10:01:38 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 |
On 28.04.20 17:03, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 28.04.2020 um 15:26 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
>> bdrv_commit() already has a BlockBackend pointing to the BDS that we
>> want to empty, it just has the wrong permissions.
>>
>> qemu-img commit has no BlockBackend pointing to the old backing file
>> yet, but introducing one is simple.
>>
>> After this commit, bdrv_make_empty() is the only remaining caller of
>> BlockDriver.bdrv_make_empty().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <address@hidden>
>> ---
>> block/commit.c | 8 +++++++-
>> qemu-img.c | 19 ++++++++++++++-----
>> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/block/commit.c b/block/commit.c
>> index 8e672799af..24720ba67d 100644
>> --- a/block/commit.c
>> +++ b/block/commit.c
>> @@ -493,10 +493,16 @@ int bdrv_commit(BlockDriverState *bs)
>> }
>>
>> if (drv->bdrv_make_empty) {
>> - ret = drv->bdrv_make_empty(bs);
>> + ret = blk_set_perm(src, BLK_PERM_WRITE, BLK_PERM_ALL, NULL);
>
> This is very likely to fail because the common case is that the source
> node is attached to a guest device that doesn't share writes.
> (qemu-iotests 131 and 274 catch this.)
>
> So I think after my theoretical comment in patch 1, this is the
> practical reason why we need WRITE_UNCHANGED rather than WRITE.
>
> Also, why don't you take this permission from the start so that we would
> error out right away rather than failing after waiting for the all the
> data to be copied?
Because we only need to take it when the BlockDriver actually supports
bdrv_make_empty(), so I thought I’d put it here where we have the check
anyway.
However, yes, when we take WRITE_UNCHANGED, we might as well take it
unconditionally from the start. (And then call blk_make_empty()
unconditionally here, too, and let it figure out -ENOTSUP, like Eric noted.)
>> if (ret < 0) {
>> goto ro_cleanup;
>> }
>> +
>> + ret = blk_make_empty(src, NULL);
>> + if (ret < 0) {
>> + goto ro_cleanup;
>> + }
>> +
>> blk_flush(src);
>> }
>>
>> diff --git a/qemu-img.c b/qemu-img.c
>> index 821cbf610e..a5e8659867 100644
>> --- a/qemu-img.c
>> +++ b/qemu-img.c
>> @@ -1065,11 +1065,20 @@ static int img_commit(int argc, char **argv)
>> goto unref_backing;
>> }
>>
>> - if (!drop && bs->drv->bdrv_make_empty) {
>> - ret = bs->drv->bdrv_make_empty(bs);
>> - if (ret) {
>> - error_setg_errno(&local_err, -ret, "Could not empty %s",
>> - filename);
>> + if (!drop) {
>> + BlockBackend *old_backing_blk;
>> +
>> + old_backing_blk = blk_new_with_bs(bs, BLK_PERM_WRITE, BLK_PERM_ALL,
>> + &local_err);
>
> Oh, you actually depend on another series that you didn't mention in
> the cover letter.
Well, yes. I didn’t really realize because I just based it on my
block-next...
Max
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Re: [PATCH 1/4] block: Add bdrv_make_empty(), (continued)
Re: [PATCH 1/4] block: Add bdrv_make_empty(), Kevin Wolf, 2020/04/28
[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
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, no-reply, 2020/04/28
Re: [PATCH 0/4] block: Do not call BlockDriver.bdrv_make_empty() directly, no-reply, 2020/04/28