Message ID | 20190618140804.59214-1-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | blockdev: enable non-root nodes for transaction drive-backup source | expand |
On 6/18/19 10:08 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > We forget to enable it for transaction .prepare, while it is already > enabled in do_drive_backup since commit a2d665c1bc362 > "blockdev: loosen restrictions on drive-backup source node" > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> > --- > > Hmm, I've to add John by hand, get_maintainer.pl don't report him. > Shouldn't we include blockdev.c into Block Jobs in MAINTAINERS? > It definitely related to block jobs. > > blockdev.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/blockdev.c b/blockdev.c > index b5c0fd3c49..4ae81d687a 100644 > --- a/blockdev.c > +++ b/blockdev.c > @@ -1775,7 +1775,7 @@ static void drive_backup_prepare(BlkActionState *common, Error **errp) > assert(common->action->type == TRANSACTION_ACTION_KIND_DRIVE_BACKUP); > backup = common->action->u.drive_backup.data; > > - bs = qmp_get_root_bs(backup->device, errp); > + bs = bdrv_lookup_bs(backup->device, backup->device, errp); > if (!bs) { > return; > } > Ah, tch. I should extend 256 too in this case. Would you like me to take care of that? Jokingly: "drive-backup is a legacy interface, please don't use it!" --js
18.06.2019 17:24, John Snow wrote: > > > On 6/18/19 10:08 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: >> We forget to enable it for transaction .prepare, while it is already >> enabled in do_drive_backup since commit a2d665c1bc362 >> "blockdev: loosen restrictions on drive-backup source node" >> >> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> >> --- >> >> Hmm, I've to add John by hand, get_maintainer.pl don't report him. >> Shouldn't we include blockdev.c into Block Jobs in MAINTAINERS? >> It definitely related to block jobs. >> >> blockdev.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/blockdev.c b/blockdev.c >> index b5c0fd3c49..4ae81d687a 100644 >> --- a/blockdev.c >> +++ b/blockdev.c >> @@ -1775,7 +1775,7 @@ static void drive_backup_prepare(BlkActionState *common, Error **errp) >> assert(common->action->type == TRANSACTION_ACTION_KIND_DRIVE_BACKUP); >> backup = common->action->u.drive_backup.data; >> >> - bs = qmp_get_root_bs(backup->device, errp); >> + bs = bdrv_lookup_bs(backup->device, backup->device, errp); >> if (!bs) { >> return; >> } >> > > Ah, tch. I should extend 256 too in this case. Would you like me to take > care of that? It will be great > > Jokingly: "drive-backup is a legacy interface, please don't use it!" > > --js >
On 6/18/19 10:08 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > We forget to enable it for transaction .prepare, while it is already > enabled in do_drive_backup since commit a2d665c1bc362 > "blockdev: loosen restrictions on drive-backup source node" > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> > --- > > Hmm, I've to add John by hand, get_maintainer.pl don't report him. > Shouldn't we include blockdev.c into Block Jobs in MAINTAINERS? > It definitely related to block jobs. > > blockdev.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/blockdev.c b/blockdev.c > index b5c0fd3c49..4ae81d687a 100644 > --- a/blockdev.c > +++ b/blockdev.c > @@ -1775,7 +1775,7 @@ static void drive_backup_prepare(BlkActionState *common, Error **errp) > assert(common->action->type == TRANSACTION_ACTION_KIND_DRIVE_BACKUP); > backup = common->action->u.drive_backup.data; > > - bs = qmp_get_root_bs(backup->device, errp); > + bs = bdrv_lookup_bs(backup->device, backup->device, errp); > if (!bs) { > return; > } > I'm half asleep, sorry, this isn't related to the patch that necessitated 256. This is fine as-is. Reviewed-by: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>
On 18.06.19 16:08, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > We forget to enable it for transaction .prepare, while it is already > enabled in do_drive_backup since commit a2d665c1bc362 > "blockdev: loosen restrictions on drive-backup source node" > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> > --- > > Hmm, I've to add John by hand, get_maintainer.pl don't report him. > Shouldn't we include blockdev.c into Block Jobs in MAINTAINERS? > It definitely related to block jobs. > > blockdev.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Thanks, applied to my block branch: https://git.xanclic.moe/XanClic/qemu/commits/branch/block Max
diff --git a/blockdev.c b/blockdev.c index b5c0fd3c49..4ae81d687a 100644 --- a/blockdev.c +++ b/blockdev.c @@ -1775,7 +1775,7 @@ static void drive_backup_prepare(BlkActionState *common, Error **errp) assert(common->action->type == TRANSACTION_ACTION_KIND_DRIVE_BACKUP); backup = common->action->u.drive_backup.data; - bs = qmp_get_root_bs(backup->device, errp); + bs = bdrv_lookup_bs(backup->device, backup->device, errp); if (!bs) { return; }
We forget to enable it for transaction .prepare, while it is already enabled in do_drive_backup since commit a2d665c1bc362 "blockdev: loosen restrictions on drive-backup source node" Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> --- Hmm, I've to add John by hand, get_maintainer.pl don't report him. Shouldn't we include blockdev.c into Block Jobs in MAINTAINERS? It definitely related to block jobs. blockdev.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)