qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V10 10/13] quorum: Add quorum_co_flush().


From: Max Reitz
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V10 10/13] quorum: Add quorum_co_flush().
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2014 23:02:57 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0

On 28.01.2014 17:52, Benoît Canet wrote:
From: Benoît Canet <address@hidden>

Makes a vote to select error if any.

Signed-off-by: Benoit Canet <address@hidden>
---
  block/quorum.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)

diff --git a/block/quorum.c b/block/quorum.c
index 9b0718b..1b84b07 100644
--- a/block/quorum.c
+++ b/block/quorum.c
@@ -653,12 +653,46 @@ free_exit:
      return result;
  }
+static coroutine_fn int quorum_co_flush(BlockDriverState *bs)
+{
+    BDRVQuorumState *s = bs->opaque;
+    QuorumVoteVersion *winner = NULL;
+    QuorumVotes error_votes;
+    QuorumVoteValue result_value;
+    int i;
+    int result = 0;
+    bool error = false;
+
+    QLIST_INIT(&error_votes.vote_list);
+    error_votes.compare = quorum_64bits_compare;
+
+    for (i = 0; i < s->total; i++) {
+        result = bdrv_co_flush(s->bs[i]);
+        if (result) {
+            error = true;
+            result_value.l = result;
+            quorum_count_vote(&error_votes, &result_value, i);
+        }
+    }
+
+    if (error) {
+        winner = quorum_get_vote_winner(&error_votes);
+        result = winner->value.l;
+    }
+
+    quorum_free_vote_list(&error_votes);
+
+    return result;
+}
+
  static BlockDriver bdrv_quorum = {
      .format_name        = "quorum",
      .protocol_name      = "quorum",
.instance_size = sizeof(BDRVQuorumState), + .bdrv_co_flush_to_disk = quorum_co_flush,
+
      .bdrv_getlength     = quorum_getlength,
.bdrv_aio_readv = quorum_aio_readv,

So, my general opinion on this patch (for reads/writes we don't vote on the error code either; so why here?) hasn't changed, but well, I definitely don't oppose it.

Another problem, however: If any error occurs, this function will return an error as well. Is that intended? If an error on a read/write operation occurs but there are still enough successful reads/writes to reach quorum, no error is returned. Is there a reason why this should be different for flush?

Max



reply via email to

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