On 02/03/2017 05:52 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 05:25:15PM +0300, Denis V. Lunev wrote: >> From: Anton Nefedov <anton.nefe...@virtuozzo.com> >> >> If explicit zeroing out before mirroring is required for the target image, >> it moves the block job offset counter to EOF, then offset and len counters >> count the image size twice. There is no harm but stats are confusing, >> specifically the progress of the operation is always reported as 99% by >> management tools. >> >> The patch skips offset increase for the first "technical" pass over the >> image. This should not cause any further harm. >> >> Signed-off-by: Anton Nefedov <anton.nefe...@virtuozzo.com> >> Signed-off-by: Denis V. Lunev <d...@openvz.org> >> CC: Jeff Cody <jc...@redhat.com> >> CC: Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> >> CC: Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com> >> CC: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> >> --- >> Changes from v1: >> - changed the approach - we do not allow to increase the offset rather then >> to move it back >> - description rewritten >> - kludges to tests are removed as not actually needed with this approach >> >> block/mirror.c | 9 +++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > Another option is to put the flag in MirrorOp instead of MirrorBlockJob. > That reduces the scope of the variable, but this is okay too: > > Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com> In this case we will have to pass argument through several layers on request creation path. Current approach is better.
Thank you for the review :) Den
