On 20.12.2016 20:15, Eric Blake wrote:
> qcow2_discard_clusters() is set up to silently ignore sub-cluster
> head or tail on unaligned requests.  However, it is easy to audit
> the various callers: qcow2_snapshot_create() has always passed
> aligned data since the call was introduced in 1ebf561;
> qcow2_co_pdiscard() has passed aligned clusters since commit
> ecdbead taught the block layer the preferred discard alignment (the
> block layer can still pass sub-cluster values, but those are
> handled directly in qcow2_co_pdiscard()); and qcow2_make_empty()
> was fixed to pass aligned clusters in commit a3e1505.  Replace
> rounding with assertions to hold us to the tighter contract,
> eliminating the now-impossible case of an early exit for a
> sub-cluster request.
> 
> qcow2_zero_clusters() has always been called with cluster-aligned
> arguments from its lone caller qcow2_co_pwrite_zeroes() (like
> qcow2_co_pdiscard(), the caller takes care of sub-cluster requests
> from the block layer; and qcow2_zero_clusters() would have
> misbehaved on unaligned requests), but it deserves the same
> assertion for symmetry.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <[email protected]>
> 
> ---
> v4: new patch
> ---
>  block/qcow2-cluster.c | 14 +++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

Reviewed-by: Max Reitz <[email protected]>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to