On 08/04/2019 18:03, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> On Fri 05 Apr 2019 06:56:17 PM CEST, Andrey Shinkevich wrote:
>> +int bdrv_is_allocated_above(BlockDriverState *top,
>> + BlockDriverState *base,
>> + int64_t offset, int64_t bytes, int64_t *pnum)
>> +{
>> + return bdrv_do_is_allocated_above(top, base, false, offset, bytes,
>> pnum);
>> +}
>> +
>> +int bdrv_is_allocated_above_inclusive(BlockDriverState *top,
>> + BlockDriverState *base,
>> + int64_t offset, int64_t bytes,
>> + int64_t *pnum)
>> +{
>> + return bdrv_do_is_allocated_above(top, base, true, offset, bytes, pnum);
>> +}
>
> Instead of having these two, isn't it simpler to add an 'include_base'
> parameter to the original function?
>
> Another alternative (I haven't checked this one so it could be more
> cumbersome): change the semantics of the function to always include the
> base and modify the callers.
>
> Berto
>
The idea behind those two functions was to keep the rest of the code
unmodified. Currently, we have the issue with the block-stream
parallel jobs. What if we manage this case first and then, when
proved to be robust, take care of the rest?
--
With the best regards,
Andrey Shinkevich
