Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH] nbd: Advertise multi-conn for shared read-only connections

2019-08-17 Thread Nir Soffer
On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 5:30 PM Eric Blake wrote: > On 8/16/19 5:47 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > > >>> +++ b/blockdev-nbd.c > >>> @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ void qmp_nbd_server_add(const char *device, bool > has_name, const char *name, > >>> } > >>> > >>> exp = nbd_export_new(bs

Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH] block: gluster: Probe alignment limits

2019-08-17 Thread Nir Soffer
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 12:21 AM Nir Soffer wrote: > Implement alignment probing similar to file-posix, by reading from the > first 4k of the image. > > Before this change, provisioning a VM on storage with sector size of > 4096 bytes would fail when the installer try to create filesystems. Here

[Qemu-block] [PATCH] block: gluster: Probe alignment limits

2019-08-17 Thread Nir Soffer
Implement alignment probing similar to file-posix, by reading from the first 4k of the image. Before this change, provisioning a VM on storage with sector size of 4096 bytes would fail when the installer try to create filesystems. Here is an example command that reproduces this issue: $ qemu-

[Qemu-block] [PATCH] block: Use QEMU_IS_ALIGNED instead of reinventing it

2019-08-17 Thread Nir Soffer
Replace instances of: (n & (BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE - 1)) == 0) With: QEMU_IS_ALIGNED(n, BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE) Which reveals the intent of the code better, and makes it easier to locate the code checking alignment. QEMU_IS_ALIGNED is implemented using %, which may be less efficient but it is used

Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PULL 5/7] file-posix: Support BDRV_REQ_NO_FALLBACK for zero writes

2019-08-17 Thread Nir Soffer
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 1:29 PM Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 15.08.2019 um 04:44 hat Eric Blake geschrieben: > > On 3/26/19 10:51 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > > We know that the kernel implements a slow fallback code path for > > > BLKZEROOUT, so if BDRV_REQ_NO_FALLBACK is given, we shouldn't call it. > >

Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block/io.c: fix for the allocation failure

2019-08-17 Thread Eric Blake
On 8/17/19 9:49 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >> This change is a regression of sorts. Now, you are unconditionally >> attempting the fallback for ALL failures (such as EIO) and for all >> drivers, even when that was not previously attempted and increases the >> traffic. I think we should revert this pa

Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block/io.c: fix for the allocation failure

2019-08-17 Thread Eric Blake
On 8/17/19 9:42 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 4/5/19 9:24 AM, Andrey Shinkevich wrote: >> On a file system used by the customer, fallocate() returns an error > > Which error? Okay, I read the rest of the thread; EINVAL. But the commit message was not amended before becoming commit 118f9944. >>

Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block/io.c: fix for the allocation failure

2019-08-17 Thread Eric Blake
On 4/5/19 9:24 AM, Andrey Shinkevich wrote: > On a file system used by the customer, fallocate() returns an error Which error? > if the block is not properly aligned. So, bdrv_co_pwrite_zeroes() > fails. We can handle that case the same way as it is done for the > unsupported cases, namely, call

Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH] file-posix: Fix has_write_zeroes after NO_FALLBACK

2019-08-17 Thread Eric Blake
On 8/16/19 4:55 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > If QEMU_AIO_NO_FALLBACK is given, we always return failure and don't > even try to use the BLKZEROOUT ioctl. In this failure case, we shouldn't > disable has_write_zeroes because we didn't learn anything about the > ioctl. The next request might not set QEMU_

Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH] nbd: Advertise multi-conn for shared read-only connections

2019-08-17 Thread Eric Blake
On 8/16/19 5:47 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: >>> +++ b/blockdev-nbd.c >>> @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ void qmp_nbd_server_add(const char *device, bool >>> has_name, const char *name, >>>   } >>> >>>   exp = nbd_export_new(bs, 0, len, name, NULL, bitmap, >>> - wr

[Qemu-block] [PULL 3/3] gitlab-ci: Remove qcow2 tests that are handled by "make check" already

2019-08-17 Thread Thomas Huth
Since most iotests are now run during "make check" already, we do not need to test them explicitly from the gitlab-ci.yml script anymore. And while we're at it, add some of the new non-auto tests >= 246 instead. Message-Id: <20190717111947.30356-5-th...@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth ---

[Qemu-block] [PULL 2/3] tests: Run the iotests during "make check" again

2019-08-17 Thread Thomas Huth
People often forget to run the iotests before submitting patches or pull requests - this is likely due to the fact that we do not run the tests during our mandatory "make check" tests yet. Now that we've got a proper "auto" group of iotests that should be fine to run in every environment, we can en

[Qemu-block] [PULL 0/3] Run iotests during "make check"

2019-08-17 Thread Thomas Huth
Hi Peter, the following changes since commit afd760539308a5524accf964107cdb1d54a059e3: Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/pmaydell/tags/pull-target-arm-20190816' into staging (2019-08-16 17:21:40 +0100) are available in the Git repository at: https://gitlab.com/huth/qemu.git tags/pull-

[Qemu-block] [PULL 1/3] block: fix NetBSD qemu-iotests failure

2019-08-17 Thread Thomas Huth
From: Paolo Bonzini Opening a block device on NetBSD has an additional step compared to other OSes, corresponding to raw_normalize_devicepath. The error message in that function is slightly different from that in raw_open_common and this was causing spurious failures in qemu-iotests. However, i