On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Pekka Enberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 20:23 +0100, Prasad Joshi wrote:
>> Changed the function names from sect_to_l1_offset(), sect_to_l2_offset() to
>> get_l1_index(), get_l2_index() as they return index into their respective
>> table.
>
> This patch does a lot more than what's described above. Please split the
> changes in two separate patches.
Okay.
>
>> + uint32_t length;
>> + uint32_t tmp;
>> + char *buf = dst;
>> +
>> + clust_size = 1 << header->cluster_bits;
>> + length = 0;
>> +
>> + while (length < dst_len) {
>> + offset = sector << SECTOR_SHIFT;
>> + if (offset >= header->size)
>> + goto out_error;
>> +
>> + l1_idx = get_l1_index(self->priv, offset);
>> + if (l1_idx >= q->table.table_size)
>> + goto out_error;
>> +
>> + l2_table_offset = be64_to_cpu(q->table.l1_table[l1_idx]);
>> + if (!l2_table_offset) {
>> + tmp = clust_size;
>> + memset(buf, 0, tmp);
>> + goto next_cluster;
>> + }
>> +
>> + l2_table_size = 1 << header->l2_bits;
>> +
>> + l2_table = calloc(l2_table_size, sizeof(uint64_t));
>> + if (!l2_table)
>> + goto out_error;
>> +
>> + if (pread_in_full(q->fd, l2_table, sizeof(uint64_t) *
>> l2_table_size, l2_table_offset) < 0)
>> + goto out_error_free_l2;
>> +
>> + l2_idx = get_l2_index(self->priv, offset);
>> + if (l2_idx >= l2_table_size)
>> + goto out_error_free_l2;
>> +
>> + clust_start = be64_to_cpu(l2_table[l2_idx]);
>> + free(l2_table);
>> + if (!clust_start) {
>> + tmp = clust_size;
>> + memset(buf, 0, tmp);
>> + } else {
>> + clust_offset = sect_to_cluster_offset(self->priv,
>> offset);
>> + tmp = clust_size - clust_offset;
>> +
>> + if (pread_in_full(q->fd, buf, tmp, clust_start +
>> clust_offset) < 0)
>> + goto out_error;
>> + }
>> +
>> +next_cluster:
>> + buf += tmp;
>> + sector += (tmp >> SECTOR_SHIFT);
>> + length += tmp;
>> + }
>
> Well, the loop is not exactly making the code any better.
More than clarity it is mandatory. The consecutive sectors are not
always guaranteed to be assigned to the same file. If fact, a cluster
might be holding a level 2 table.
> If you're
> worried about reads that cross over a single cluster, it's probably
> better to rename the current function to qcow1_read_cluster() or
> something and use that in a loop that makes sure we never cross over a
> cluster.
Okay.
>
> Btw, I think our ->read_sector and ->write_sector functions need
> renaming to ->read_sectors and ->write_sectors with little bit
> commentary on what they can expect to receive.
>
Okay.
Thanks and Regards,
Prasad
> Pekka
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
