On 12/11/2014 09:17 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Several functions to provide necessary access to BdrvDirtyBitmap for
block-migration.c
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsement...@parallels.com>
---
block.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
include/block/block.h | 10 +++++++++
2 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block.c b/block.c
index 6edf1dc..7d42620 100644
--- a/block.c
+++ b/block.c
@@ -5511,8 +5511,65 @@ void bdrv_reset_dirty_bitmap(BlockDriverState *bs,
BdrvDirtyBitmap *bitmap,
hbitmap_reset(bitmap->bitmap, cur_sector, nr_sectors);
}
-static void bdrv_set_dirty(BlockDriverState *bs, int64_t cur_sector,
- int nr_sectors)
+const char *bdrv_dirty_bitmap_name(const BdrvDirtyBitmap *bitmap)
+{
+ return bitmap->name;
+}
+
+uint64_t bdrv_dbm_data_size(const BdrvDirtyBitmap *bitmap, uint64_t count)
+{
+ return hbitmap_data_size(bitmap->bitmap, count);
+}
+
Stefan recommended to me for V10 that I avoid using different
abbreviations such as "dbm" to avoid lengthy functions, so I removed any
mention of "DBM" from my patches. We should coordinate and ensure any
abbreviations we use for the BdrvDirtyBitmap functions are used
consistently... or not at all.
+void bdrv_dbm_store_data(const BdrvDirtyBitmap *bitmap, uint8_t *buf,
+ uint64_t start, uint64_t count)
+{
+ hbitmap_store_data(bitmap->bitmap, buf, start, count);
+}
+
+void bdrv_dbm_restore_data(BdrvDirtyBitmap *bitmap, uint8_t *buf,
+ uint64_t start, uint64_t count)
+{
+ hbitmap_restore_data(bitmap->bitmap, buf, start, count);
+}
+
+BdrvDirtyBitmap **bdrv_dbm_find_all_named(BlockDriverState *bs, int *count)
+{
+ BdrvDirtyBitmap *bm, **res, **iter;
+ assert(count);
+
Should force *count back to zero before usage.
+ QLIST_FOREACH(bm, &bs->dirty_bitmaps, list) {
+ if (bm->name != NULL) {
+ (*count)++;
+ }
+ }
+
+ iter = res = g_malloc(sizeof(*res) * (*count));
+ QLIST_FOREACH(bm, &bs->dirty_bitmaps, list) {
+ if (bm->name != NULL) {
+ *iter++ = bm;
+ }
+ }
+
+ return res;
+}
+
+void bdrv_dbm_restore_finish(void)
+{
+ BlockDriverState *bs;
+ BdrvDirtyBitmap *bm;
+
+ for (bs = bdrv_next(NULL); bs != NULL; bs = bdrv_next(bs)) {
+ QLIST_FOREACH(bm, &bs->dirty_bitmaps, list) {
+ if (bm->name != NULL) {
+ hbitmap_restore_finish(bm->bitmap);
+ }
+ }
+ }
+}
+
+void bdrv_set_dirty(BlockDriverState *bs, int64_t cur_sector,
+ int nr_sectors)
Is removing the static keyword here for set_dirty intentional?
{
BdrvDirtyBitmap *bitmap;
QLIST_FOREACH(bitmap, &bs->dirty_bitmaps, list) {
diff --git a/include/block/block.h b/include/block/block.h
index b21233c..09eff80 100644
--- a/include/block/block.h
+++ b/include/block/block.h
@@ -459,6 +459,16 @@ void bdrv_dirty_iter_init(BlockDriverState *bs,
void bdrv_dirty_iter_set(struct HBitmapIter *hbi, int64_t offset);
int64_t bdrv_get_dirty_count(BlockDriverState *bs, BdrvDirtyBitmap *bitmap);
+uint64_t bdrv_dbm_data_size(const BdrvDirtyBitmap *bitmap, uint64_t count);
+void bdrv_dbm_store_data(const BdrvDirtyBitmap *bitmap, uint8_t *buf,
+ uint64_t start, uint64_t count);
+void bdrv_dbm_restore_data(BdrvDirtyBitmap *bitmap, uint8_t *buf,
+ uint64_t start, uint64_t count);
+bool bdrv_dbm_is_named(BdrvDirtyBitmap *bitmap);
+const char *bdrv_dirty_bitmap_name(const BdrvDirtyBitmap *bitmap);
+BdrvDirtyBitmap **bdrv_dbm_find_all_named(BlockDriverState *bs, int *count);
+void bdrv_dbm_restore_finish(void);
+
void bdrv_enable_copy_on_read(BlockDriverState *bs);
void bdrv_disable_copy_on_read(BlockDriverState *bs);
