Am 23.10.2014 um 13:09 hat Max Reitz geschrieben: > On 2014-10-23 at 12:52, Kevin Wolf wrote: > >Am 22.10.2014 um 14:51 hat Max Reitz geschrieben: > >>Instead of taking the total length of the block device as the block > >>job's length, use the number of dirty sectors. The progress is now the > >>number of sectors mirrored to the target block device. Note that this > >>may result in the job's length increasing during operation, which is > >>however in fact desirable. > >More importantly, because it might surprise management tools, is that > >the progress (as in offset/len) can actually decrease now. > > > >I can't say whether that creates any problem, I'll rely on Eric's > >Reviewed-by for that. > > Eric said, it would rather solve problems. > > >>Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com> > >>Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> > >>--- > >> block/mirror.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------ > >> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > >>@@ -409,6 +416,12 @@ static void coroutine_fn mirror_run(void *opaque) > >> } > >> cnt = bdrv_get_dirty_count(bs, s->dirty_bitmap); > >>+ /* s->common.offset contains the number of bytes already processed > >>so > >>+ * far, cnt is the number of dirty sectors remaining and > >>+ * s->sectors_in_flight is the number of sectors currently being > >>+ * processed; together those are the current total operation > >>length */ > >>+ s->common.len = s->common.offset + > >>+ (cnt + s->sectors_in_flight) * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE; > >Isn't s->sectors_in_flight still contained in cnt? If I understand > >correctly, sectors are only marked as clean at the same time as > >s->sectors_in_flight is decremented again. > > As far as I see, bdrv_reset_dirty() is called in mirror_iteration() > right before s->sectors_in_flight is incremented.
You're right, I confused it with the other bitmap operations in mirror_iteration_done(). So: Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com>
