qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [FIX V2] block: Fix device snapshots broken by the bloc


From: Benoît Canet
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [FIX V2] block: Fix device snapshots broken by the block filter snapshots patchset.
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:44:21 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

The Thursday 13 Feb 2014 à 09:33:52 (+0100), Kevin Wolf wrote :
> Am 13.02.2014 um 02:51 hat Benoît Canet geschrieben:
> > Signed-off-by: Benoit Canet <address@hidden>
> > ---
> >  block.c | 6 +-----
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> Should be [PATCH v3] in the subject line.
> 
> > diff --git a/block.c b/block.c
> > index 70d7f35..d9553ba 100644
> > --- a/block.c
> > +++ b/block.c
> > @@ -5419,11 +5419,7 @@ bool bdrv_is_first_non_filter(BlockDriverState 
> > *candidate)
> >      QTAILQ_FOREACH(bs, &bdrv_states, device_list) {
> >          bool perm;
> >  
> > -        if (!bs->file) {
> > -            continue;
> > -        }
> > -
> > -        perm = bdrv_recurse_is_first_non_filter(bs->file, candidate);
> > +        perm = bdrv_recurse_is_first_non_filter(bs, candidate);
> >  
> >          /* candidate is the first non filter */
> >          if (perm) {
> 
> So we're back to my patch, just with different author? I thought you
> said something was broken with it?

Yes it's your patch.

My quorum command line had extra "file." in front of the quorum parameters.
(the user error you mentioned)
That's the reason I initially broke snapshot's because I was testing against
something like bs->file thinking it was normal to get top bs in bs->file.
And that's also the reason why I though your patch was broken.

The quorum series also need a repost to get rid of the "file." of the commit
comment.

Best regards

Benoît

> 
> Kevin
> 



reply via email to

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