From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57230) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VKOJ9-0005JE-KQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 04:00:59 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VKOJ1-0005YR-6c for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 04:00:51 -0400 Received: from mx.ipv6.kamp.de ([2a02:248:0:51::16]:52935 helo=mx01.kamp.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VKOJ0-0005YJ-No for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 04:00:43 -0400 Message-ID: <5232C61F.4010502@kamp.de> Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 10:00:31 +0200 From: Peter Lieven MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1378481953-23099-1-git-send-email-stefanha@redhat.com> <1378481953-23099-40-git-send-email-stefanha@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1378481953-23099-40-git-send-email-stefanha@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 39/42] block: look for zero blocks in bs->file List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: Paolo Bonzini , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Anthony Liguori On 06.09.2013 17:39, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > From: Paolo Bonzini > > Reviewed-by: Eric Blake > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini > Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi > --- > block.c | 16 +++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/block.c b/block.c > index 3c39769..a325efc 100644 > --- a/block.c > +++ b/block.c > @@ -3075,7 +3075,7 @@ static int64_t coroutine_fn bdrv_co_get_block_status(BlockDriverState *bs, > { > int64_t length; > int64_t n; > - int64_t ret; > + int64_t ret, ret2; > > length = bdrv_getlength(bs); > if (length < 0) { > @@ -3117,6 +3117,20 @@ static int64_t coroutine_fn bdrv_co_get_block_status(BlockDriverState *bs, > } > } > } > + > + if (bs->file && > + (ret & BDRV_BLOCK_DATA) && !(ret & BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO) && > + (ret & BDRV_BLOCK_OFFSET_VALID)) { > + ret2 = bdrv_co_get_block_status(bs->file, ret >> BDRV_SECTOR_BITS, > + *pnum, pnum); > + if (ret2 >= 0) { > + /* Ignore errors. This is just providing extra information, it > + * is useful but not necessary. > + */ > + ret |= (ret2 & BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO); > + } > + } > + > return ret; > } > for allocated blocks in iscsi this actually leads to 2 call outs to iscsi_get_block_status. because the raw driver passes the get_block_status request to bs->file.