| Message ID | 20180713111424.23670-1-mreitz@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | qemu-img: Allow rebase with no input base | expand |
Ping On 13.07.18 13:14, Max Reitz wrote: > This series allows using qemu-img rebase on images that do not have a > backing file. Right now, this fails with the rather cryptic error > message: > > $ qemu-img rebase -b base.qcow2 foo.qcow2 > qemu-img: Could not open old backing file '': The 'file' block driver requires a file name > > Yeah, well, OK. > > With how rebase currently works, this would lead to the overlay being > filled with zeroes, however. This is where patch 2 comes in and instead > makes rebase use blk_pwrite_zeroes() whenever it handles an area past > the input’s backing file’s EOF. > > (Note that additionally we could try to punch holes in the overlay > whenever it matches the new backing file, but that’s something I’ll put > off for later. (We don’t even have a reliable method for punching holes > into an overlay yet, although I would like to have such because it could > make active commit more efficient.)) > > > And patch 3 adds the usual test. > > > Max Reitz (3): > qemu-img: Allow rebase with no input base > qemu-img: Use zero writes after source backing EOF > iotests: Add test for rebase without input base > > qemu-img.c | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- > tests/qemu-iotests/024 | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > tests/qemu-iotests/024.out | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 150 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-) >
Ping again (I feel like I just need to start merging unreviewed patches until I break something (can't take that long) so you get so scared of my patches that you at least refuse them outright) On 13.07.18 13:14, Max Reitz wrote: > This series allows using qemu-img rebase on images that do not have a > backing file. Right now, this fails with the rather cryptic error > message: > > $ qemu-img rebase -b base.qcow2 foo.qcow2 > qemu-img: Could not open old backing file '': The 'file' block driver requires a file name > > Yeah, well, OK. > > With how rebase currently works, this would lead to the overlay being > filled with zeroes, however. This is where patch 2 comes in and instead > makes rebase use blk_pwrite_zeroes() whenever it handles an area past > the input’s backing file’s EOF. > > (Note that additionally we could try to punch holes in the overlay > whenever it matches the new backing file, but that’s something I’ll put > off for later. (We don’t even have a reliable method for punching holes > into an overlay yet, although I would like to have such because it could > make active commit more efficient.)) > > > And patch 3 adds the usual test. > > > Max Reitz (3): > qemu-img: Allow rebase with no input base > qemu-img: Use zero writes after source backing EOF > iotests: Add test for rebase without input base > > qemu-img.c | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- > tests/qemu-iotests/024 | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > tests/qemu-iotests/024.out | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 150 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-) >
13.04.2019 19:11, Max Reitz wrote: > Ping again > > (I feel like I just need to start merging unreviewed patches until I > break something (can't take that long) so you get so scared of my > patches that you at least refuse them outright) Could you resend before? > > On 13.07.18 13:14, Max Reitz wrote: >> This series allows using qemu-img rebase on images that do not have a >> backing file. Right now, this fails with the rather cryptic error >> message: >> >> $ qemu-img rebase -b base.qcow2 foo.qcow2 >> qemu-img: Could not open old backing file '': The 'file' block driver requires a file name >> >> Yeah, well, OK. >> >> With how rebase currently works, this would lead to the overlay being >> filled with zeroes, however. This is where patch 2 comes in and instead >> makes rebase use blk_pwrite_zeroes() whenever it handles an area past >> the input’s backing file’s EOF. >> >> (Note that additionally we could try to punch holes in the overlay >> whenever it matches the new backing file, but that’s something I’ll put >> off for later. (We don’t even have a reliable method for punching holes >> into an overlay yet, although I would like to have such because it could >> make active commit more efficient.)) >> >> >> And patch 3 adds the usual test. >> >> >> Max Reitz (3): >> qemu-img: Allow rebase with no input base >> qemu-img: Use zero writes after source backing EOF >> iotests: Add test for rebase without input base >> >> qemu-img.c | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- >> tests/qemu-iotests/024 | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> tests/qemu-iotests/024.out | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++ >> 3 files changed, 150 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-) >> > >
On 18.04.19 19:00, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > 13.04.2019 19:11, Max Reitz wrote: >> Ping again >> >> (I feel like I just need to start merging unreviewed patches until I >> break something (can't take that long) so you get so scared of my >> patches that you at least refuse them outright) > > Could you resend before? Sure, but for me, this series still applies as-is. Max
24.04.2019 16:48, Max Reitz wrote: > On 18.04.19 19:00, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: >> 13.04.2019 19:11, Max Reitz wrote: >>> Ping again >>> >>> (I feel like I just need to start merging unreviewed patches until I >>> break something (can't take that long) so you get so scared of my >>> patches that you at least refuse them outright) >> >> Could you resend before? > > Sure, but for me, this series still applies as-is. > For me the problem is that I've removed mails older than half a year some time ago..