On 15.03.24 12:55, Alexander Ivanov wrote:
On 2/28/24 17:48, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
On 09.02.24 15:29, Alexander Ivanov wrote:
Could you please review the patch?
Sorry for long delay.
Honestly, I don't like refcnt in block-driver. It violate incapsulation, refcnt
is interal thing of common block layer. And actually, you can't make any
assumptions from value of refcnt, as you don't know which additional parents
were created and why, and when they are going unref their children.
Hmmm... Maybe I can just exclude refcnt check from the condition, can't I. If
BDS will be removed it doesn't matter if we make it RO. What do you think?
Sounds good. I even don't see, why you need bdrv_chain_has_significant_parent()
check. We just roll-back ro->rw transition on failure case, isn't just always
correct thing to do?
What was wrong with v2?
My bad, it seems, I didn't send v2 before I decided to change the patch.
Hmm, somehow, I don't have it in my mailbox, but here it is:
https://patchew.org/QEMU/20240109093128.157460-1-alexander.iva...@virtuozzo.com/
===
More: in commit message you say about failure case. And it seems OK to roll-back
ro->rw transition on failure, if we did it. But mirror_exit_common() called on
success path too. I think, on success patch, we should do any additional
reopenings?
--
Best regards,
Vladimir
