On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:47:05AM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 04:46:49PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 02:22:10PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > > @@ -707,6 +710,16 @@ int qcow2_alloc_cluster_link_l2(BlockDriverState
> > > *bs, QCowL2Meta *m)
> > > }
> > >
> > > /* Update L2 table. */
> > > + qemu_co_mutex_unlock(&s->lock);
> > > + qemu_co_rwlock_wrlock(&m->l2_writeback_lock);
> > > + has_wr_lock = true;
> > > + qemu_co_mutex_lock(&s->lock);
> > > +
> > > + if (m->no_l2_update) {
> >
> > QcowL2Meta now has a no_l2_update field. A sign that we're abusing the
> > QcowL2Meta struct and really need a different abstraction?
>
> I think the abstraction is the right one, even though maybe it could use
> a rename. Maybe QcowL2Meta -> QcowCOWRequest or something. The comment
> in qcow2.h correctly describes what it's meant for.
>
> /**
> * Describes an in-flight (part of a) write request that writes to clusters
> * that are not referenced in their L2 table yet.
> */
> typedef struct QCowL2Meta
>
> However, I think m->no_l2_update is actually redundant: The goal is that
> only one request that touches a cluster should be responsible for
> updating the L2 table, and it makes sense to choose the first one to do
> that. We already have this information in m->parent: The first one is
> the root of the tree described by these parent links. So if I'm not
> mistaken, m->no_l2_update == (m->parent != NULL).
Okay, that makes sense.
Stefan
