| Message ID | 1374762197-7261-5-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Am 25.07.2013 um 16:23 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben: > If a BlockDriverState is growable, after every write we need to > check if bs->total_sectors might have changed. > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> > --- > block.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/block.c b/block.c > index 6cd39fa..ebac2fa 100644 > --- a/block.c > +++ b/block.c > @@ -2651,6 +2651,9 @@ static int coroutine_fn bdrv_co_do_writev(BlockDriverState *bs, > if (bs->wr_highest_sector < sector_num + nb_sectors - 1) { > bs->wr_highest_sector = sector_num + nb_sectors - 1; > } > + if (bs->growable && ret >= 0) { > + bs->total_sectors = MAX(bs->total_sectors, sector_num + nb_sectors); > + } Can we change bdrv_getlength() to use bs->total_sectors even for growable images after this patch? Kevin
Il 29/07/2013 15:13, Kevin Wolf ha scritto: > Am 25.07.2013 um 16:23 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben: >> If a BlockDriverState is growable, after every write we need to >> check if bs->total_sectors might have changed. >> >> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> >> --- >> block.c | 3 +++ >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/block.c b/block.c >> index 6cd39fa..ebac2fa 100644 >> --- a/block.c >> +++ b/block.c >> @@ -2651,6 +2651,9 @@ static int coroutine_fn bdrv_co_do_writev(BlockDriverState *bs, >> if (bs->wr_highest_sector < sector_num + nb_sectors - 1) { >> bs->wr_highest_sector = sector_num + nb_sectors - 1; >> } >> + if (bs->growable && ret >= 0) { >> + bs->total_sectors = MAX(bs->total_sectors, sector_num + nb_sectors); >> + } > > Can we change bdrv_getlength() to use bs->total_sectors even for > growable images after this patch? Probably, but not in 1.6. :) Paolo
Am 29.07.2013 um 15:47 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben: > Il 29/07/2013 15:13, Kevin Wolf ha scritto: > > Am 25.07.2013 um 16:23 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben: > >> If a BlockDriverState is growable, after every write we need to > >> check if bs->total_sectors might have changed. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> > >> --- > >> block.c | 3 +++ > >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/block.c b/block.c > >> index 6cd39fa..ebac2fa 100644 > >> --- a/block.c > >> +++ b/block.c > >> @@ -2651,6 +2651,9 @@ static int coroutine_fn bdrv_co_do_writev(BlockDriverState *bs, > >> if (bs->wr_highest_sector < sector_num + nb_sectors - 1) { > >> bs->wr_highest_sector = sector_num + nb_sectors - 1; > >> } > >> + if (bs->growable && ret >= 0) { > >> + bs->total_sectors = MAX(bs->total_sectors, sector_num + nb_sectors); > >> + } > > > > Can we change bdrv_getlength() to use bs->total_sectors even for > > growable images after this patch? > > Probably, but not in 1.6. :) "Probably" was my conclusion as well. The answer to this question is the answer to whether this patch makes sense, I think. So I can give you a Probably-reviewed-by if that's of any use. ;-) FWIW, I've got the feeling that the whole series might be better suited for block-next. Is there anything urgent in it? Kevin
Il 29/07/2013 16:10, Kevin Wolf ha scritto: > Am 29.07.2013 um 15:47 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben: >> Il 29/07/2013 15:13, Kevin Wolf ha scritto: >>> Am 25.07.2013 um 16:23 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben: >>>> If a BlockDriverState is growable, after every write we need to >>>> check if bs->total_sectors might have changed. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> >>>> --- >>>> block.c | 3 +++ >>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/block.c b/block.c >>>> index 6cd39fa..ebac2fa 100644 >>>> --- a/block.c >>>> +++ b/block.c >>>> @@ -2651,6 +2651,9 @@ static int coroutine_fn bdrv_co_do_writev(BlockDriverState *bs, >>>> if (bs->wr_highest_sector < sector_num + nb_sectors - 1) { >>>> bs->wr_highest_sector = sector_num + nb_sectors - 1; >>>> } >>>> + if (bs->growable && ret >= 0) { >>>> + bs->total_sectors = MAX(bs->total_sectors, sector_num + nb_sectors); >>>> + } >>> >>> Can we change bdrv_getlength() to use bs->total_sectors even for >>> growable images after this patch? >> >> Probably, but not in 1.6. :) > > "Probably" was my conclusion as well. The answer to this question is the > answer to whether this patch makes sense, I think. So I can give you a > Probably-reviewed-by if that's of any use. ;-) > > FWIW, I've got the feeling that the whole series might be better suited > for block-next. Is there anything urgent in it? No, I don't think so. Paolo
On 29.07.2013 16:18, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 29/07/2013 16:10, Kevin Wolf ha scritto: >> Am 29.07.2013 um 15:47 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben: >>> Il 29/07/2013 15:13, Kevin Wolf ha scritto: >>>> Am 25.07.2013 um 16:23 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben: >>>>> If a BlockDriverState is growable, after every write we need to >>>>> check if bs->total_sectors might have changed. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> block.c | 3 +++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/block.c b/block.c >>>>> index 6cd39fa..ebac2fa 100644 >>>>> --- a/block.c >>>>> +++ b/block.c >>>>> @@ -2651,6 +2651,9 @@ static int coroutine_fn bdrv_co_do_writev(BlockDriverState *bs, >>>>> if (bs->wr_highest_sector < sector_num + nb_sectors - 1) { >>>>> bs->wr_highest_sector = sector_num + nb_sectors - 1; >>>>> } >>>>> + if (bs->growable && ret >= 0) { >>>>> + bs->total_sectors = MAX(bs->total_sectors, sector_num + nb_sectors); >>>>> + } >>>> Can we change bdrv_getlength() to use bs->total_sectors even for >>>> growable images after this patch? >>> Probably, but not in 1.6. :) >> "Probably" was my conclusion as well. The answer to this question is the >> answer to whether this patch makes sense, I think. So I can give you a >> Probably-reviewed-by if that's of any use. ;-) >> >> FWIW, I've got the feeling that the whole series might be better suited >> for block-next. Is there anything urgent in it? > No, I don't think so. can you give an update what are to current plans/schedule to merge this series? I have a few patches in the queue that in their current version depend on this series being merged. Peter
Il 02/08/2013 09:05, Peter Lieven ha scritto: > can you give an update what are to current plans/schedule to merge this > series? I have > a few patches in the queue that in their current version depend on this > series being merged. It should go in soon, perhaps a couple of weeks. Paolo
On 17.08.2013 08:27, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 02/08/2013 09:05, Peter Lieven ha scritto: >> can you give an update what are to current plans/schedule to merge this >> series? I have >> a few patches in the queue that in their current version depend on this >> series being merged. > It should go in soon, perhaps a couple of weeks. That would be good. I would like to make the relevant changes to iscsi soon and as I promised to convert everything in block/iscsi to coroutines this will be a lot. Peter
diff --git a/block.c b/block.c index 6cd39fa..ebac2fa 100644 --- a/block.c +++ b/block.c @@ -2651,6 +2651,9 @@ static int coroutine_fn bdrv_co_do_writev(BlockDriverState *bs, if (bs->wr_highest_sector < sector_num + nb_sectors - 1) { bs->wr_highest_sector = sector_num + nb_sectors - 1; } + if (bs->growable && ret >= 0) { + bs->total_sectors = MAX(bs->total_sectors, sector_num + nb_sectors); + } tracked_request_end(&req);
If a BlockDriverState is growable, after every write we need to check if bs->total_sectors might have changed. Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> --- block.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)