From patchwork Tue May 15 15:40:21 2018 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Kevin Wolf X-Patchwork-Id: 913780 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=nongnu.org (client-ip=2001:4830:134:3::11; helo=lists.gnu.org; envelope-from=qemu-devel-bounces+incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@nongnu.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:4830:134:3::11]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40lhz42K2xz9s01 for ; Wed, 16 May 2018 01:57:19 +1000 (AEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:44515 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fIcKB-0003Dl-Vc for incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org; Tue, 15 May 2018 11:57:16 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39151) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fIc4i-000714-BF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 May 2018 11:41:18 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fIc4e-0001mv-Cz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 May 2018 11:41:16 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:34268 helo=mx1.redhat.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fIc4V-0001Yf-0K; Tue, 15 May 2018 11:41:03 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B8BCBB40F; Tue, 15 May 2018 15:41:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain.com (ovpn-117-164.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.117.164]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE4FB2024CBA; Tue, 15 May 2018 15:41:01 +0000 (UTC) From: Kevin Wolf To: qemu-block@nongnu.org Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 17:40:21 +0200 Message-Id: <20180515154033.19899-26-kwolf@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20180515154033.19899-1-kwolf@redhat.com> References: <20180515154033.19899-1-kwolf@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.11.54.4 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.1]); Tue, 15 May 2018 15:41:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: inspected by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.1]); Tue, 15 May 2018 15:41:02 +0000 (UTC) for IP:'10.11.54.4' DOMAIN:'int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com' HELO:'smtp.corp.redhat.com' FROM:'kwolf@redhat.com' RCPT:'' X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 66.187.233.73 Subject: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 25/37] block: BLK_PERM_WRITE includes ..._UNCHANGED X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" From: Max Reitz Currently we never actually check whether the WRITE_UNCHANGED permission has been taken for unchanging writes. But the one check that is commented out checks both WRITE and WRITE_UNCHANGED; and considering that WRITE_UNCHANGED is already documented as being weaker than WRITE, we should probably explicitly document WRITE to include WRITE_UNCHANGED. Signed-off-by: Max Reitz Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi Reviewed-by: Alberto Garcia Message-id: 20180421132929.21610-3-mreitz@redhat.com Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf Signed-off-by: Max Reitz --- include/block/block.h | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/include/block/block.h b/include/block/block.h index cdec3639a3..397b5e8d44 100644 --- a/include/block/block.h +++ b/include/block/block.h @@ -205,6 +205,9 @@ enum { * This permission (which is weaker than BLK_PERM_WRITE) is both enough and * required for writes to the block node when the caller promises that * the visible disk content doesn't change. + * + * As the BLK_PERM_WRITE permission is strictly stronger, either is + * sufficient to perform an unchanging write. */ BLK_PERM_WRITE_UNCHANGED = 0x04,