On Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 13:39 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com> wrote:
The patch doesn't compile for me:
pipe-ops.c:121:17: error: initialization of ‘_Bool (*)(struct rw *, uint64_t, uint64_t, _Bool)’ {aka ‘_Bool (*)(struct rw *, long unsigned int, long unsigned int, _Bool)’} from incompatible pointer type ‘_Bool (*)(struct rw *, uint64_t, uint64_t)’ {aka ‘_Bool (*)(struct rw *, long unsigned int, long unsigned int)’} [-Werror=incompatible-pointer-types] 121 | .synch_zero = pipe_synch_trim_zero, | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ pipe-ops.c:121:17: note: (near initialization for ‘pipe_ops.synch_zero’) pipe-ops.c:133:18: error: initialization of ‘_Bool (*)(struct rw *, struct command *, nbd_completion_callback, _Bool)’ from incompatible pointer type ‘_Bool (*)(struct rw *, struct command *, nbd_completion_callback)’ [-Werror=incompatible-pointer-types] 133 | .asynch_zero = pipe_asynch_trim_zero, | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ pipe-ops.c:133:18: note: (near initialization for ‘pipe_ops.asynch_zero’)
It compiled here on top of master, will check again.
More comments below.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 03:09:05AM +0200, Nir Soffer wrote:
diff --git a/copy/file-ops.c b/copy/file-ops.c index 2a239d0..d0b9447 100644 --- a/copy/file-ops.c +++ b/copy/file-ops.c @@ -100,10 +100,9 @@ file_synch_write (struct rw *rw, }
static bool -file_synch_trim (struct rw *rw, uint64_t offset, uint64_t count) +file_punch_hole(int fd, uint64_t offset, uint64_t count)
(Style) missing space before '(' ...
Sorry, will fix in next version.
{ #ifdef FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE - int fd = rw->u.local.fd; int r;
r = fallocate (fd, FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE, @@ -113,17 +112,14 @@ file_synch_trim (struct rw *rw, uint64_t offset, uint64_t count) exit (EXIT_FAILURE); } return true; -#else /* !FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE */ - return false; #endif + return false; }
static bool -file_synch_zero (struct rw *rw, uint64_t offset, uint64_t count) +file_zero_range(int fd, uint64_t offset, uint64_t count)
... and here
{ - if (S_ISREG (rw->u.local.stat.st_mode)) { #ifdef FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE - int fd = rw->u.local.fd; int r;
r = fallocate (fd, FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE, offset, count); @@ -133,11 +129,13 @@ file_synch_zero (struct rw *rw, uint64_t offset, uint64_t count) } return true; #endif - } - else if (S_ISBLK (rw->u.local.stat.st_mode) && - IS_ALIGNED (offset | count, rw->u.local.sector_size)) { + return false; +} + +static bool +file_zeroout(int fd, uint64_t offset, uint64_t count)
... and here
+{ #ifdef BLKZEROOUT - int fd = rw->u.local.fd; int r; uint64_t range[2] = {offset, count};
@@ -148,6 +146,31 @@ file_synch_zero (struct rw *rw, uint64_t offset, uint64_t count) } return true; #endif + return false; +} + +static bool +file_synch_trim (struct rw *rw, uint64_t offset, uint64_t count) +{ + return file_punch_hole(rw->u.local.fd, offset, count); +} + +static bool +file_synch_zero (struct rw *rw, uint64_t offset, uint64_t count, bool allocate)
... and overlong line.
+{ + int fd = rw->u.local.fd; + + if (S_ISREG (rw->u.local.stat.st_mode)) { + if (allocate) { + return file_zero_range (fd, offset, count); + } else { + return file_punch_hole (fd, offset, count); + } + } + else if (S_ISBLK (rw->u.local.stat.st_mode) && + IS_ALIGNED (offset | count, rw->u.local.sector_size)) { + /* Always allocate, discard and gurantee zeroing. */ + return file_zeroout (fd, offset, count); } return false;
In the S_ISBLK && not aligned case, is giving up OK?
Not sure what do you mean by this, but it returns false love ke the previous version, right?
diff --git a/copy/nbdcopy.h b/copy/nbdcopy.h index 69fac2a..21d09bf 100644 --- a/copy/nbdcopy.h +++ b/copy/nbdcopy.h @@ -134,7 +134,8 @@ struct rw_ops { bool (*synch_trim) (struct rw *rw, uint64_t offset, uint64_t count);
/* Synchronously zero. If not possible, returns false. */ - bool (*synch_zero) (struct rw *rw, uint64_t offset, uint64_t count); + bool (*synch_zero) (struct rw *rw, uint64_t offset, uint64_t count, + bool allocate);
After this change ops->synch_trim and ops->asynch_trim are no longer used, so I guess they should be removed completely from the code?
Yes, unless we have a reason to keep the trim option.
Rich.
-- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com virt-builder quickly builds VMs from scratch http://libguestfs.org/virt-builder.1.html