Re: [PATCH v3 32/33] block: Pass BdrvChildRole in remaining cases

[Kevin Wolf]

Am 07.05.2020 um 11:36 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> On 06.05.20 19:13, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 18.02.2020 um 13:42 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> >> These calls have no real use for the child role yet, but it will not
> >> harm to give one.
> >>
> >> Notably, the bdrv_root_attach_child() call in blockjob.c is left
> >> unmodified because there is not much the generic BlockJob object wants
> >> from its children.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <address@hidden>
> >> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>
> > 
> >> diff --git a/block/vvfat.c b/block/vvfat.c
> >> index 8f4ff5a97e..d4f4218924 100644
> >> --- a/block/vvfat.c
> >> +++ b/block/vvfat.c
> >> @@ -3186,7 +3186,7 @@ static int enable_write_target(BlockDriverState *bs, 
> >> Error **errp)
> >>      options = qdict_new();
> >>      qdict_put_str(options, "write-target.driver", "qcow");
> >>      s->qcow = bdrv_open_child(s->qcow_filename, options, "write-target", 
> >> bs,
> >> -                              &child_vvfat_qcow, 0, false, errp);
> >> +                              &child_vvfat_qcow, BDRV_CHILD_DATA, false, 
> >> errp);
> > 
> > Doesn't it contain metadata, too?
> 
> Aw, I don’t know...  This is vvfat, I don’t want to know.
> 
> Do you mean metadata beyond the filesystem structures?  Are those
> structures data or metadata in this context?  Does it even matter?

I can't say I understand what the qcow node is even used for in detail.
vvfat checks the allocation status in the qcow node in a few places,
does this count as metadata?

> I suppose I just don’t want to think about all of that, and the simplest
> way to do it is to indeed pass METADATA, too.

Yep, that was my thinking. If we can't decide whether it's just DATA or
also METADATA and want to err on the safe side, setting both should do.

Kevin

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature