On Wed 25 Apr 2018 01:18:03 PM CEST, Max Reitz wrote:
>>> +#define PERM_PASSTHROUGH (BLK_PERM_CONSISTENT_READ \
>>> + | BLK_PERM_WRITE \
>>> + | BLK_PERM_RESIZE)
>>> +#define PERM_UNCHANGED (BLK_PERM_ALL & ~PERM_PASSTHROUGH)
>>> +
>>> +static void cor_child_perm(BlockDriverState *bs, BdrvChild *c,
>>> + const BdrvChildRole *role,
>>> + BlockReopenQueue *reopen_queue,
>>> + uint64_t perm, uint64_t shared,
>>> + uint64_t *nperm, uint64_t *nshared)
>>> +{
>>> + if (c == NULL) {
>>> + *nperm = (perm & PERM_PASSTHROUGH) | BLK_PERM_WRITE_UNCHANGED;
>>> + *nshared = (shared & PERM_PASSTHROUGH) | PERM_UNCHANGED;
>>> + return;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + *nperm = (perm & PERM_PASSTHROUGH) |
>>> + (c->perm & PERM_UNCHANGED);
>>
>> I admit I'm not completely familiar with this, but don't you need to
>> add BLK_PERM_WRITE_UNCHANGED to *nperm ?
>
> As long as it's requested in when the child is attached (which it is
> in the "c == NULL" case), it should be part of c->perm then.
>
> (And since PERM_PASSTHROUGH does not contain WRITE_UNCHANGED, it is
> part of PERM_UNCHANGED.)
I see, thanks.
Reviewed-by: Alberto Garcia <[email protected]>
Berto
