Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [PATCH v9 02/31] block: Use children list in bdrv_refresh_filename

[Ari Sundholm]

On 07/22/2018 12:14 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 2018-07-19 14:47, Ari Sundholm wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > On 06/28/2018 03:07 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
> > > bdrv_refresh_filename() should invoke itself recursively on all
> > > children, not just on file.
> > >
> > > With that change, we can remove the manual invocations in blkverify,
> > > quorum, commit, and mirror.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <address@hidden>
> > > Reviewed-by: Alberto Garcia <address@hidden>
> > > Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <address@hidden>
> > > ---
> > >    block.c           | 9 +++++----
> > >    block/blkverify.c | 3 ---
> > >    block/commit.c    | 1 -
> > >    block/mirror.c    | 1 -
> > >    block/quorum.c    | 1 -
> > >    5 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/block.c b/block.c
> > > index e418c97423..52247062d5 100644
> > > --- a/block.c
> > > +++ b/block.c
> > > @@ -5174,16 +5174,17 @@ static bool append_open_options(QDict *d,
> > > BlockDriverState *bs)
> > >    void bdrv_refresh_filename(BlockDriverState *bs)
> > >    {
> > >        BlockDriver *drv = bs->drv;
> > > +    BdrvChild *child;
> > >        QDict *opts;
> > >          if (!drv) {
> > >            return;
> > >        }
> > >    -    /* This BDS's file name will most probably depend on its file's
> > > name, so
> > > -     * refresh that first */
> > > -    if (bs->file) {
> > > -        bdrv_refresh_filename(bs->file->bs);
> > > +    /* This BDS's file name may depend on any of its children's file
> > > names, so
> > > +     * refresh those first */
> > > +    QLIST_FOREACH(child, &bs->children, next) {
> > > +        bdrv_refresh_filename(child->bs);
> > >        }
> > >          if (drv->bdrv_refresh_filename) {
> > > diff --git a/block/blkverify.c b/block/blkverify.c
> > > index da97ee5927..4a18baaf20 100644
> > > --- a/block/blkverify.c
> > > +++ b/block/blkverify.c
> > > @@ -285,9 +285,6 @@ static void
> > > blkverify_refresh_filename(BlockDriverState *bs, QDict *options)
> > >    {
> > >        BDRVBlkverifyState *s = bs->opaque;
> > >    -    /* bs->file->bs has already been refreshed */
> > > -    bdrv_refresh_filename(s->test_file->bs);
> > > -
> > >        if (bs->file->bs->full_open_options
> > >            && s->test_file->bs->full_open_options)
> > >        {
> > > diff --git a/block/commit.c b/block/commit.c
> > > index e1814d9693..26db55d800 100644
> > > --- a/block/commit.c
> > > +++ b/block/commit.c
> > > @@ -234,7 +234,6 @@ static int coroutine_fn
> > > bdrv_commit_top_preadv(BlockDriverState *bs,
> > >      static void bdrv_commit_top_refresh_filename(BlockDriverState *bs,
> > > QDict *opts)
> > >    {
> > > -    bdrv_refresh_filename(bs->backing->bs);
> > >        pstrcpy(bs->exact_filename, sizeof(bs->exact_filename),
> > >                bs->backing->bs->filename);
> > >    }
> > > diff --git a/block/mirror.c b/block/mirror.c
> > > index 61bd9f3cf1..2f5ccae2b1 100644
> > > --- a/block/mirror.c
> > > +++ b/block/mirror.c
> > > @@ -1421,7 +1421,6 @@ static void
> > > bdrv_mirror_top_refresh_filename(BlockDriverState *bs, QDict *opts)
> > >             * bdrv_set_backing_hd */
> > >            return;
> > >        }
> > > -    bdrv_refresh_filename(bs->backing->bs);
> > >        pstrcpy(bs->exact_filename, sizeof(bs->exact_filename),
> > >                bs->backing->bs->filename);
> > >    }
> > > diff --git a/block/quorum.c b/block/quorum.c
> > > index 9152da8c58..03388590f3 100644
> > > --- a/block/quorum.c
> > > +++ b/block/quorum.c
> > > @@ -1080,7 +1080,6 @@ static void
> > > quorum_refresh_filename(BlockDriverState *bs, QDict *options)
> > >        int i;
> > >          for (i = 0; i < s->num_children; i++) {
> > > -        bdrv_refresh_filename(s->children[i]->bs);
> > >            if (!s->children[i]->bs->full_open_options) {
> > >                return;
> > >            }
> >
> > Should blklogwrites not also receive the same treatment?
>
> Probably, but how could I have known before blklogwrites was in? :-)

Sorry about that. I realized my mistake soon after sending my message. :)

My excuse is that the threaded view in my Thunderbird showed the series 
among new ones (due to a recent "ping" message in the thread), and I 
didn't immediately notice from the timestamps that the series itself had 
been sent much earlier.

Best regards,
Ari Sundholm
address@hidden