Il giorno ven, 22/07/2011 alle 12.10 +0200, Kevin Wolf ha scritto: > Am 22.07.2011 11:26, schrieb Frediano Ziglio: > > 2011/7/22 Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com>: > >> Am 20.07.2011 15:56, schrieb Frediano Ziglio: > >>> These patches mostly cleanup some AIO code using coroutines. > >>> These patches apply to Kevin's repository, branch coroutine-block. > >>> Mostly they use stack instead of allocated AIO structure. > >>> > >>> Frediano Ziglio (5): > >>> qcow: allocate QCowAIOCB structure using stack > >>> qcow: QCowAIOCB field cleanup > >>> qcow: move some blocks of code to avoid useless variable > >>> initialization > >>> avoid dandling pointers > >>> qcow: small optimization initializing QCowAIOCB > >>> > >>> block/qcow.c | 210 > >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------------- > >>> block/qcow2.c | 38 +++------- > >>> 2 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 146 deletions(-) > >> > >> Most of it looks good now. Did you include the "RFC" in the subject just > >> because the coroutine work is in RFC state, too, or did you intend to > >> tell me that I shouldn't merge yet? > >> > >> Kevin > >> > > > > As these patches are first quite big patches I send (typo or small > > fixes do not counts) I just want to mark that I could write something > > really wrong. Just a way to avoid somebody having to send more patches > > and get more attention. Some projects are quite prone to merge even > > not that fine ones. I prefer to have some (a bit) pedantic comments > > and a real fix/improve. > > > > Now I removed the RFC from last update. The main reason is that I > > found your qemu-iotests repository which, I think should be merged to > > main repository, but it's just my opinion. > > Oh... qcow fails 004 test (even origin/coroutines-block) with a I/O error. > > Yup, you're right, I must have messed it up. Care to fix it or should I > look into it? >
Care but I don't know if I'll have time before Thursday. However I found the problem, really strange. bdrv_read returns <0 for errors 0 for success and... bytes read on partial read! Now a qcow image of 128m is 560 bytes so when you read sector 1 you get 48 which is not a problem for qcow code. But if you replace bdrv_read with a bdrv_co_readv (your latest patch on coroutine-block) bdrv_co_readv return -EINVAL on partial read. Frediano
