From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41299) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V59QE-0006cm-TU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Aug 2013 03:05:19 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V59Q5-0006pV-Ic for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Aug 2013 03:05:10 -0400 Received: from mx.ipv6.kamp.de ([2a02:248:0:51::16]:40384 helo=mx01.kamp.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V59Q5-0006nC-7D for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Aug 2013 03:05:01 -0400 Message-ID: <51FB5A37.1010400@kamp.de> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 09:05:27 +0200 From: Peter Lieven MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1374762197-7261-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1374762197-7261-5-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20130729131344.GD10467@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> <51F6727A.8090102@redhat.com> <20130729141022.GJ10467@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> <51F679B0.9070602@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <51F679B0.9070602@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 04/19] block: update bs->total_sectors on writes List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Kevin Wolf , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com 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 >>>>> --- >>>>> 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