From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35214)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1WHyZP-0003Mv-Fm
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:40:01 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1WHyZH-0003YW-G9
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:39:55 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59396)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1WHyZH-0003YR-8q
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:39:47 -0500
Message-ID: <530B75C8.60908@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:39:36 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <530B4DAA.6070301@kamp.de> <20140224143735.GA6595@T430.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140224143735.GA6595@T430.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] compressed VMDKs and BDRV_BLOCK_OFFSET_VALID
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com>, Peter Lieven <pl@kamp.de>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>

Il 24/02/2014 15:37, Fam Zheng ha scritto:
> On Mon, 02/24 14:48, Peter Lieven wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wonder if the current output of get_block_status for compressed VMDKs is correct or
>> if we need this patch?:
>>
>> diff --git a/block/vmdk.c b/block/vmdk.c
>> index ff6f5ee..5fa29b0 100644
>> --- a/block/vmdk.c
>> +++ b/block/vmdk.c
>> @@ -1146,7 +1146,7 @@ static int64_t coroutine_fn vmdk_co_get_block_status(BlockDriverState *bs,
>>          break;
>>      case VMDK_OK:
>>          ret = BDRV_BLOCK_DATA;
>> -        if (extent->file == bs->file) {
>> +        if (extent->file == bs->file && !extent->compressed) {
>>              ret |= BDRV_BLOCK_OFFSET_VALID | offset;
>>          }
>>
>
> Yes, I think you are right. The output shouldn't contain offset for compressed
> extents.

Ack.

Paolo