[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] scsi: add block job opblockers
Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] scsi: add block job opblockers for scsi-block
Mon, 12 Mar 2018 12:10:18 +0100
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
On 12/02/2018 15:50, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 12/02/2018 15:48, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Am 12.02.2018 um 15:32 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
>>> Okay, we are in agreement about this and you expressed very well why I
>>> (at the gut feeling level) didn't like the old op blockers. But you
>>> bypassed the real question, which is: should I send a pull request for
>>> these two patches or not? :)
>> I didn't spell it out that explicitly, but this is essentially a NACK.
>> I'd very much prefer if you could replace it with the proper solution.
>> Of course, we can always make exceptions when there is a good reason,
>> but with 2.12 still two months away, I doubt we have one.
> Ok, I don't mind explicitness. I'll keep these two patches in the queue
> for now.
It's now one month away. Regarding the solution below:
> I propose a new BLK_PERM_BYPASS that allows its users to bypass the
> block layer I/O functions. In other words, bdrv_aio_ioctl() would
> require that you got this permission. A dirty bitmap would keep a
> BdrvChild with perm=0, shared=BLK_PERM_ALL & ~BLK_PERM_BYPASS, so you
> can never have a dirty bitmap and a device using ioctls attached to the
> BDS at the same time.
I suppose it would be like:
- scsi-block/scsi-generic call blk_set_perm with perm == shared ==
- users of dirty bitmaps would call use perm/shared_perm as in your
- dirty bitmaps creation calls bdrv_get_cumulative_perm (which should
now become public) and checks that it doesn't have BLK_PERM_BYPASS in
Anything I'm missing?
- Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] scsi: add block job opblockers for scsi-block,
Paolo Bonzini <=