On 26.11.18 15:16, Kevin Wolf wrote: > bdrv_child_cb_inactivate() asserts that parents are already inactive > when children get inactivated. This precondition is necessary because > parents could still issue requests in their inactivation code. > > When block nodes are created individually with -blockdev, all of them > are monitor owned and will be returned by bdrv_next() in an undefined > order (in practice, in the order of their creation, which is usually > children before parents), which obviously fails the assertion: > > qemu: block.c:899: bdrv_child_cb_inactivate: Assertion `bs->open_flags & > BDRV_O_INACTIVE' failed. > > This patch fixes the ordering by skipping nodes with still active > parents in bdrv_inactivate_recurse() because we know that they will be > covered by recursion when the last active parent becomes inactive. > > Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <[email protected]> > --- > block.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/block.c b/block.c > index 5ba3435f8f..e9181c3be7 100644 > --- a/block.c > +++ b/block.c
[...]
> @@ -4622,6 +4638,14 @@ static int bdrv_inactivate_recurse(BlockDriverState
> *bs,
> return -ENOMEDIUM;
> }
>
> + /* Make sure that we don't inactivate a child before its parent.
> + * It will be covered by recursion from the yet active parent. */
> + if (bdrv_has_bds_parent(bs, true)) {
Overall the patch looks good to me, apart from the fact that I still
think this should only be checked if setting_flag is true.
(Because BDRV_O_INACTIVE is only set during the second pass, so this
check will lead to the first pass not doing anything (and thus not
calling bs->drv->bdrv_inactivate()) on any non-root bs.)
Max
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + assert(!(bs->open_flags & BDRV_O_INACTIVE));
> +
> if (!setting_flag && bs->drv->bdrv_inactivate) {
> ret = bs->drv->bdrv_inactivate(bs);
> if (ret < 0) {
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
