From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55790) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YTVHx-0002hc-OQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 07:54:06 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YTVHs-0007VI-Mn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 07:54:05 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47919) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YTVHs-0007V7-Ff for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 07:54:00 -0500 Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 13:53:57 +0100 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20150305125357.GB5427@noname.redhat.com> References: <1425509290-14048-1-git-send-email-stefanha@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1425509290-14048-1-git-send-email-stefanha@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block/raw-posix: fix launching with failed disks List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: Paolo Bonzini , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, hare@suse.de Am 04.03.2015 um 23:48 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben: > Since commit c25f53b06eba1575d5d0e92a0132455c97825b83 ("raw: Probe > required direct I/O alignment") QEMU has failed to launch if image files > produce I/O errors. > > Previously, QEMU would launch successfully and the guest would see the > errors when attempting I/O. > > This is a regression and may prevent multipath I/O inside the guest, > where QEMU must launch and let the guest figure out by itself which > disks are online. > > Tweak the alignment probing code in raw-posix.c to explicitly look for > EINVAL on Linux instead of bailing. The kernel refuses misaligned > requests with this error code and other error codes can be ignored. > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi This seems to conflict with the geometry series. Please rebase on the current block branch. Also, I would be surprised if this had been working by design. It's probably more by chance. If we want to make this a supported case, we need to add a qemu-iotests case, as this seems to be easy to break accidentally. Kevin