qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 8/9] block: Fix bdrv_co_truncate overlap chec


From: Eric Blake
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 8/9] block: Fix bdrv_co_truncate overlap check
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 17:09:27 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0

On 07/05/2018 02:37 AM, Fam Zheng wrote:
If we are growing the image and potentially using preallocation for the
new area, we need to make sure that no write requests are made to the
"preallocated" area which address@hidden, @offset), not address@hidden, offset 
* 2

s/which/which is/

- @old_size).

Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng <address@hidden>
---
  block/io.c | 3 ++-
  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>


diff --git a/block/io.c b/block/io.c
index d07849fa96..ed18eb0ca3 100644
--- a/block/io.c
+++ b/block/io.c
@@ -3070,7 +3070,8 @@ int coroutine_fn bdrv_co_truncate(BdrvChild *child, 
int64_t offset,
      }
bdrv_inc_in_flight(bs);
-    tracked_request_begin(&req, bs, offset, new_bytes, BDRV_TRACKED_TRUNCATE);
+    tracked_request_begin(&req, bs, offset - new_bytes, new_bytes,
+                          BDRV_TRACKED_TRUNCATE);

Is it any more legible to do s/offset - new_bytes/old_size/, since those are equivalent?

/* If we are growing the image and potentially using preallocation for the
       * new area, we need to make sure that no write requests are made to it


--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]