From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55161)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1WhKLk-00044q-7R
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 May 2014 10:58:42 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1WhKLd-0003Id-UA
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 May 2014 10:58:36 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57087)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1WhKLd-0003IN-Kj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 May 2014 10:58:29 -0400
Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s45EwSIq023660
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256
	verify=OK)
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 5 May 2014 10:58:28 -0400
Message-ID: <5367A711.607@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 16:58:25 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1378314038-15525-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<1378314038-15525-13-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<20140505143412.GE3317@noname.str.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140505143412.GE3317@noname.str.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 12/21] block: define get_block_status
 return value
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: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com

Il 05/05/2014 16:34, Kevin Wolf ha scritto:
> I think we're missing the information whether the BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO flag
> actually comes from bs itself or from the backing chain. Do we need
> another flag or does someone have a better idea?

Not sure if it is a better idea :) but we can duplicate the logic of
bdrv_get_co_block_status in bdrv_is_allocated.

The observation here is that bdrv_has_zero_init should have been 
changed to bdrv_unallocated_blocks_are_zero in commit c3d8688
(block/get_block_status: fix BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO for unallocated blocks,
2013-10-24); the logic in the commit message applies just as well to
bdrv_is_allocated.

Of course, instead of cut-and-paste we can wrap all this into a
bdrv_unallocated_block_is_zero(bs, sector_num) function like this:

        if (bdrv_unallocated_blocks_are_zero(bs)) {
            return true;
        }
        if (bs->backing_hd) {
            BlockDriverState *bs2 = bs->backing_hd;
            int64_t length2 = bdrv_getlength(bs2);
            if (length2 >= 0 && sector_num >= (length2 >> BDRV_SECTOR_BITS)) {
                return true;
            }
        }
        return false;

The function can then be used in bdrv_get_block_status to add a
BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO, and in bdrv_is_allocated instead of bdrv_has_zero_init.
(Bonus points for renaming bdrv_is_allocated to something like
bdrv_has_content, and similarly for bdrv_is_allocated_above).

Paolo