Am 05.07.2017 um 23:08 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
> We are gradually converting to byte-based interfaces, as they are
> easier to reason about than sector-based. Continue by converting
> the public interface to backup jobs (no semantic change), including
> a change to CowRequest to track by bytes instead of cluster indices.
>
> Note that this does not change the difference between the public
> interface (starting point, and size of the subsequent range) and
> the internal interface (starting and end points).
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: John Snow <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Xie Changlong <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Jeff Cody <[email protected]>
> diff --git a/block/backup.c b/block/backup.c
> index 4e64710..cfbd921 100644
> --- a/block/backup.c
> +++ b/block/backup.c
> @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ static inline int64_t cluster_size_sectors(BackupBlockJob
> *job)
>
> /* See if in-flight requests overlap and wait for them to complete */
> static void coroutine_fn wait_for_overlapping_requests(BackupBlockJob *job,
> - int64_t start,
> + int64_t offset,
> int64_t end)
Not sure how useful this rename is. I think I would have renamed either
both or probably actually none of the parameters. start/end is a nice
pair, offset/end is kind of unexpected. start_offset/end_offset would be
an option if you do want to rename, but I don't see a need for it in
this very short function.
> {
> CowRequest *req;
> @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ static void coroutine_fn
> wait_for_overlapping_requests(BackupBlockJob *job,
> do {
> retry = false;
> QLIST_FOREACH(req, &job->inflight_reqs, list) {
> - if (end > req->start && start < req->end) {
> + if (end > req->start_byte && offset < req->end_byte) {
> qemu_co_queue_wait(&req->wait_queue, NULL);
> retry = true;
> break;
> @@ -75,10 +75,10 @@ static void coroutine_fn
> wait_for_overlapping_requests(BackupBlockJob *job,
>
> /* Keep track of an in-flight request */
> static void cow_request_begin(CowRequest *req, BackupBlockJob *job,
> - int64_t start, int64_t end)
> + int64_t offset, int64_t end)
Same here.
But again, not a correctness issue.
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <[email protected]>
