ב-11 ביוני 2021, בשעה 11:14, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> כתב/ה:
11.06.2021 11:09, Kevin Wolf wrote:Am 10.06.2021 um 22:46 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 11:09:05PM +0300, Nir Soffer wrote:
But:
$ qemu-img map --output=json -f qcow2 json:'{"driver":"qcow2","backing":null, \
"file":{"driver":"file","filename":"top.qcow2"}}'
[{ "start": 0, "length": 65536, "depth": 0, "zero": true, "data": false},
{ "start": 65536, "length": 65536, "depth": 0, "zero": false, "data": true, "offset": 327680},
{ "start": 131072, "length": 131072, "depth": 0, "zero": true, "data": false}]
also reports the entire file at "depth":0, which is misleading, since
we have just been arguing from the qemu:allocation-depth perspective
(and also from bdrv_block_status) that the qcow2 image is NOT 100%
allocated (in the sense where allocation == data comes locally).
Perhaps it might be better if we tweaked the above qemu-img map to
produce:
[{ "start": 0, "length": 65536, "depth": -1, "zero": true, "data": false},
{ "start": 65536, "length": 65536, "depth": 0, "zero": false, "data": true, "offset": 327680},
{ "start": 131072, "length": 65536, "depth": 0, "zero": true, "data": false},
{ "start": 196608, "length": 65536, "depth": -1, "zero": true, "data": false}]
It will be more consistent with "offset" to drop "depth" from output
if we don't have it:
[{ "start": 0, "length": 65536, "zero": true, "data": false},
{ "start": 65536, "length": 65536, "depth": 0, "zero": false,
"data": true, "offset": 327680},
{ "start": 131072, "length": 65536, "depth": 0, "zero": true,
"data": false},
{ "start": 196608, "length": 65536, "zero": true, "data": false}]
Yes, that might work as well. But we didn't previously document
depth to be optional. Removing something from output risks breaking
more downstream tools that expect it to be non-optional, compared to
providing a new value.
A negative value isn't any less unexpected than a missing key. I don't
think any existing tool would be able to handle it. Encoding different
meanings in a single value isn't very QAPI-like either. Usually strings
that are parsed are the problem, but negative integers really isn't that
much different. I don't really like this solution.
Leaving out the depth feels like a better suggestion to me.
But anyway, this seems to only happen at the end of the backing chain.
So if the backing chain consistents of n images, why not report 'depth':
n + 1? So, in the above example, you would get 1. I think this has the
best chances of tools actually working correctly with the new output,
even though it's still not unlikely to break something.
Did you consider just add a new field?So, "depth" keeps its meaning "which level provides data".And we add additional optional field likeabsolutely-completely-absent: bool
hole: bool?
Which is true if data is nowhere in the backing chain.
-- Best regards, Vladimir
|