From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43203 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Prva5-0003TP-7b for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:59:26 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PrvZz-00033k-MZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:59:16 -0500 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:45105) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PrvZz-00033C-H5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:59:15 -0500 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PrvZx-0005FF-08 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:59:13 +0100 Received: from 93-34-149-100.ip50.fastwebnet.it ([93.34.149.100]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:59:12 +0100 Received: from pbonzini by 93-34-149-100.ip50.fastwebnet.it with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:59:12 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:59:01 +0100 Message-ID: <4D63EB55.2000800@redhat.com> References: <1298369880-23859-1-git-send-email-Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com> <1298369880-23859-2-git-send-email-Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com> <4D63D217.9080206@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] For AIO return -ENOSPC on short write List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Kevin Wolf , hch@infradead.org, stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com On 02/22/2011 04:16 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > Yes it is. It doesn't explain it though. The code involved here is > linux-aio.c and will be qcow2's bs->file. That ought to be a > host_device and AFAIK that is not growable. So I wanted to figure out > why we're even getting this far. I expected the request to get > rejected in block.c when checking the range against the host_device. Possibly a COW logical volume can give short writes on disk full? Paolo