On 07.04.2017 15:53, Eric Blake wrote: > On 04/07/2017 05:32 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> The assertion is currently failing. We can't require callers to have >> write permissions when all they are doing is a read, so comment it out. >> Add a FIXME comment in the code so that the check is re-enabled when >> copy on read is refactored into its own filter driver. >> >> Reported-by: Richard W.M. Jones <rjo...@redhat.com> >> Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> >> --- >> block/io.c | 9 ++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/block/io.c b/block/io.c >> index 2709a70..7321dda 100644 >> --- a/block/io.c >> +++ b/block/io.c >> @@ -945,7 +945,14 @@ static int coroutine_fn >> bdrv_co_do_copy_on_readv(BdrvChild *child, >> size_t skip_bytes; >> int ret; >> >> - assert(child->perm & (BLK_PERM_WRITE_UNCHANGED | BLK_PERM_WRITE)); >> + /* FIXME We cannot require callers to have write permissions when all >> they >> + * are doing is a read request. If we did things right, write >> permissions >> + * would be obtained anyway, but internally by the copy-on-read code. As >> + * long as it is implemented here rather than in a separat filter >> driver, > > s/separat/separate/ > >> + * the copy-on-read code doesn't have its own BdrvChild, however, for >> which >> + * it could request permissions. Therefore we have to bypass the >> permission >> + * system for the moment. */ >> + // assert(child->perm & (BLK_PERM_WRITE_UNCHANGED | BLK_PERM_WRITE)); > > Makes checkpatch.pl unhappy - but that's intentional.
Is it? I don't know. But not that I mind, so for good measure: Reviewed-by: Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com> > Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
