On 26.08.2022 15:23, Alexander Ivanov wrote:
On 26.08.2022 15:08, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
On 25.08.2022 16:31, Alexander Ivanov wrote:
We will add more and more checks so we need a better code structure
in parallels_co_check. Let each check performs in a separate loop
in a separate helper.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Ivanov <alexander.iva...@virtuozzo.com>
---
block/parallels.c | 59
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/parallels.c b/block/parallels.c
index eea318f809..f50cd232aa 100644
--- a/block/parallels.c
+++ b/block/parallels.c
@@ -438,13 +438,50 @@ static void
parallels_check_unclean(BlockDriverState *bs,
}
}
+static int parallels_check_outside_image(BlockDriverState *bs,
+ BdrvCheckResult *res,
+ BdrvCheckMode fix)
+{
+ BDRVParallelsState *s = bs->opaque;
+ uint32_t i;
+ int64_t off, high_off, size;
+
+ size = bdrv_getlength(bs->file->bs);
+ if (size < 0) {
+ res->check_errors++;
+ return size;
+ }
+
+ high_off = 0;
+ for (i = 0; i < s->bat_size; i++) {
+ off = bat2sect(s, i) << BDRV_SECTOR_BITS;
+ if (off > size) {
we need one more patch here. Correct check would be
if (off >= size) {
bla-bla()
}
I have such a patch in the next patchset.
If you have it in hands, can you pls send it here as 11/10
patch. That would be most convenient to me.
Den
