qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Additional parameters for qemu_img map


From: Eyal Moscovici
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Additional parameters for qemu_img map
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 21:46:26 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0


On 13/05/2020 20:49, Eric Blake wrote:
On 5/13/20 8:36 AM, Eyal Moscovici wrote:
Hi,

The following series adds two parameters to qemu-img map:
1. start-offset: mapping starting offset.
2. max-length: the length of the mapping.

These parameters proved useful when mapping large disk spread across
long store file chains. It allows us to bound the execution time of each
qemu-img map execution as well as recover from failed mapping
operations. In addition the map operation can divided to
multiple independent tasks.

V3 changes:
1. Add cvtnum_full and made cvtnum a wrapper function.
2. Keep the original boundaries checks.
3. Tone down error messages.

While this does not directly touch NBD code, I find it quite handy for my tests of incremental backups over NBD (since I frequently use x-dirty-bitmap coupled with qemu-img map to read bitmaps, and subsetting the output is indeed nice), so I'll queue this through my NBD tree.  It may be another week or so before I send a pull request including this and other collected patches.

Congratulations on your first qemu contribution!
Thanks :)

 qemu-img.c                 | 76 +++++++++++++++++---------------------
 tests/qemu-iotests/049.out |  8 ++--
 2 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)

This series diffstat is off; later in the series, in 4/4, I see:
I had some copy & paste issues with my cover letter, sorry.

 docs/tools/qemu-img.rst |  2 +-
 qemu-img-cmds.hx        |  4 ++--
 qemu-img.c              | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++-
 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

What I don't see is any iotest coverage of the new options, to ensure they don't regress.  Either a new iotest, or an enhancement to an existing iotest.  If you feel up to the task, post a 5/4 patch; if not, I'll probably enhance 223 (my x-dirty-bitmap reading code mentioned above).

I will take a look at test 223, and see if I can enhance it.



reply via email to

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