On 10/02/2017 07:56 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 10/02/2017 04:27 PM, John Snow wrote: >> >> >> On 09/13/2017 12:03 PM, Eric Blake wrote: >>> Previously, the alloc command required that input parameters be >>> sector-aligned and clamped to 32 bits, because the underlying >>> bdrv_is_allocated used a 32-bit parameter and asserted aligned >>> inputs. But now that we have fixed block status to report a >>> 64-bit bytes value, and to properly round requests on behalf of >>> guests, we can pass any values, and can use qemu-io to add >>> coverage that our rounding is correct regardless of the guest >>> alignment constraints. >>> >>> Update iotest 177 to intentionally probe block status at >>> unaligned boundaries as well as with a bytes value that does not >>> map to 32-bit sectors, which also required tweaking the image >>> prep to leave an unallocated portion to the image under test. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> >>> > >>> echo >>> +echo "== block status smaller than alignment ==" >>> +limits=align=4k >>> +$QEMU_IO -c "open -o $options,$limits blkdebug::$TEST_IMG" \ >>> + -c "alloc 1 1" -c "alloc 0x6dffff0 1000" -c "alloc 127m 5P" \ >>> + -c map | _filter_qemu_io >>> + > >> >> aaand I'll hold off on this one until the respin so I don't have to >> review the test twice. > > Fair enough; thanks for the reviews. > > By the way, it's operations like the above additions where you can step > through bdrv_co_block_status in gdb to see all the rounding/alignment > steps in action, so I do feel pretty confident that my changes in 21/23 > were fairly well covered. >
I do actually trust you, but I wasn't able to *quickly* convince myself, so I held up on the r-b. I didn't spot any problems either, to be fair...! >> >> I'll say I'm done for v4 for now :) > > I'll try to get v5 posted in the next day or two. > No rush on my end ... --js
