On 30.05.23 19:29, Eric Blake wrote:
On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 05:26:50PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
On 15.05.23 22:53, Eric Blake wrote:
Upstream NBD now documents[1] an extension that supports 64-bit effect
lengths in requests. As part of that extension, the size of the reply
h
On 30.05.23 21:22, Eric Blake wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 04:23:46PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
On 15.05.23 22:53, Eric Blake wrote:
Add the constants and structs necessary for later patches to start
implementing the NBD_OPT_EXTENDED_HEADERS extension in both the client
and s
On 15.05.23 22:53, Eric Blake wrote:
Upcoming additions to support NBD 64-bit effect lengths allow for the
possibility to distinguish between payload length (capped at 32M) and
effect length (up to 63 bits). Without that extension, only the
NBD_CMD_WRITE request has a payload; but with the exten
On 15.05.23 22:53, Eric Blake wrote:
Part of NBD's 64-bit headers extension involves passing the client's
requested offset back as part of the reply header (one reason for this
change: converting absolute offsets stored in
NBD_REPLY_TYPE_OFFSET_DATA to relative offsets within the buffer is
easier
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 09:10:13PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> While analyzing 'union sbuf' in preparation to add more members to the
> union, I noticed several things related to __attribute__((packed))
> that can be improved. It helps to note that that the bulk of the
> members of 'union sbuf' are
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 12:44:41PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 01:18:55PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> > On 5/29/23 18:24, Eric Blake wrote:
> > > Externally, we have been exposing the 64-bit opaque marker for each
> > > NBD packet as the "cookie", because it was less confusi
On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 03:32:36PM +0200, Jürgen Hötzel wrote:
> Fixes failing implice_close test on OCaml 5.
> ---
> ocaml/t/guestfs_065_implicit_close.ml | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/ocaml/t/guestfs_065_implicit_close.ml
> b/ocaml/t/guestfs_065_i
On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 03:35:38PM +0200, Jürgen Hötzel wrote:
> Fixes deadlocks on OCaml5 when trying to get the lock that is already
> held:
>
> Fatal error during lock: Resource deadlock avoided
> ---
> ocaml/guestfs-c.c | 8 ++--
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff
On 5/31/23 11:12, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 03:32:36PM +0200, Jürgen Hötzel wrote:
>> Fixes failing implice_close test on OCaml 5.
>> ---
>> ocaml/t/guestfs_065_implicit_close.ml | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/ocaml/t/guest
On 5/31/23 04:10, Eric Blake wrote:
> While analyzing 'union sbuf' in preparation to add more members to the
> union, I noticed several things related to __attribute__((packed))
> that can be improved. It helps to note that that the bulk of the
> members of 'union sbuf' are already marked packed s
This bug and thread seem relevant:
https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/issues/11812
https://discuss.ocaml.org/t/ocaml-5-gc-releasing-memory-back-to-the-os/11293
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http:
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 12:32:49PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 5/31/23 11:12, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 03:32:36PM +0200, Jürgen Hötzel wrote:
> >> Fixes failing implice_close test on OCaml 5.
> >> ---
> >> ocaml/t/guestfs_065_implicit_close.ml | 4 ++--
> >> 1 file
... And while I'm scrawling my throughts into this thread ...
What we intend here are two slightly different operations:
(A) Free every unreachable object. That's what we want in this
specific place in the code.
(B) Provide a soft test that the OCaml heap hasn't been screwed
up because of bug
On 5/30/23 20:48, Eric Blake wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 05:48:25PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 5/30/23 16:56, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 01:50:59PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 5/25/23 15:00, Eric Blake wrote:
>>
> +struct nbd_structured_reply_block_stat
On 5/30/23 20:18, Eric Blake wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 04:06:32PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 5/25/23 15:00, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> Support sending 64-bit requests if extended headers were negotiated.
>>> This includes setting NBD_CMD_FLAG_PAYLOAD_LEN any time we send an
>>> extended NBD
On 15.05.23 22:53, Eric Blake wrote:
The NBD spec states that if the client negotiates extended headers,
the server must avoid NBD_REPLY_TYPE_BLOCK_STATUS and instead use
NBD_REPLY_TYPE_BLOCK_STATUS_EXT which supports 64-bit lengths, even if
the reply does not need more than 32 bits. As of this
On 5/31/23 13:13, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 12:32:49PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 5/31/23 11:12, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>> On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 03:32:36PM +0200, Jürgen Hötzel wrote:
Fixes failing implice_close test on OCaml 5.
---
ocaml/t/gues
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 04:44:49PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 5/31/23 13:13, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 12:32:49PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> >> On 5/31/23 11:12, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >>> On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 03:32:36PM +0200, Jürgen Hötzel wrote:
>
On 15.05.23 22:53, Eric Blake wrote:
Time to support clients that request extended headers. Now we can
finally reach the code added across several previous patches.
Even though the NBD spec has been altered to allow us to accept
NBD_CMD_READ larger than the max payload size (provided our respon
On 5/31/23 13:23, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> ... And while I'm scrawling my throughts into this thread ...
>
> What we intend here are two slightly different operations:
>
> (A) Free every unreachable object. That's what we want in this
> specific place in the code.
>
> (B) Provide a soft t
On 15.05.23 22:53, Eric Blake wrote:
Update the client code to be able to send an extended request, and
parse an extended header from the server. Note that since we reject
any structured reply with a too-large payload, we can always normalize
a valid header back into the compact form, so that th
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 12:45:16PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 5/31/23 04:10, Eric Blake wrote:
> > While analyzing 'union sbuf' in preparation to add more members to the
> > union, I noticed several things related to __attribute__((packed))
> > that can be improved. It helps to note that that
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 05:33:13PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 5/31/23 13:23, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >
> > ... And while I'm scrawling my throughts into this thread ...
> >
> > What we intend here are two slightly different operations:
> >
> > (A) Free every unreachable object. That's
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 01:59:12PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> >>
> >>> +
> >>> + /* FIXME: future API addition to test if server negotiated extended
> >>> mode.
> >>> + * Until then, strict flags must ignore the PAYLOAD_LEN flag for
> >>> pwrite,
> >>> + * even though it is rejected for ot
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 01:29:30PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> >> Putting aside alignment even, I don't understand why reducing "count" to
> >> uint16_t would be reasonable. With the current 32-bit-only block
> >> descriptor, we already need to write loops in libnbd clients, because we
> >> can't
On 15.05.23 22:53, Eric Blake wrote:
Because we use NBD_CMD_FLAG_REQ_ONE with NBD_CMD_BLOCK_STATUS, a
client in narrow mode should not be able to provoke a server into
sending a block status result larger than the client's 32-bit request.
But in extended mode, a 64-bit status request must be able
On 15.05.23 22:53, Eric Blake wrote:
All the pieces are in place for a client to finally request extended
headers. Note that we must not request extended headers when qemu-nbd
why must not? It should gracefully report ENOTSUP? Or not?
is used to connect to the kernel module (as nbd.ko does n
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 08:00:43PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> On 15.05.23 22:53, Eric Blake wrote:
> > Because we use NBD_CMD_FLAG_REQ_ONE with NBD_CMD_BLOCK_STATUS, a
> > client in narrow mode should not be able to provoke a server into
> > sending a block status result larger th
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 08:39:53PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> On 15.05.23 22:53, Eric Blake wrote:
> > All the pieces are in place for a client to finally request extended
> > headers. Note that we must not request extended headers when qemu-nbd
>
> why must not? It should grace
On 31.05.23 20:40, Eric Blake wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 08:00:43PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
On 15.05.23 22:53, Eric Blake wrote:
Because we use NBD_CMD_FLAG_REQ_ONE with NBD_CMD_BLOCK_STATUS, a
client in narrow mode should not be able to provoke a server into
sending a bl
On 31.05.23 20:54, Eric Blake wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 08:39:53PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
On 15.05.23 22:53, Eric Blake wrote:
All the pieces are in place for a client to finally request extended
headers. Note that we must not request extended headers when qemu-nbd
w
"Richard W.M. Jones" writes:
> On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 03:35:38PM +0200, Jürgen Hötzel wrote:
>> Fixes deadlocks on OCaml5 when trying to get the lock that is already
>> held:
>>
>> Fatal error during lock: Resource deadlock avoided
>> ---
>> ocaml/guestfs-c.c | 8 ++--
>> 1 file changed,
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 09:33:20PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> On 31.05.23 20:54, Eric Blake wrote:
> > On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 08:39:53PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
> > wrote:
> > > On 15.05.23 22:53, Eric Blake wrote:
> > > > All the pieces are in place for a client to
On 5/31/23 17:48, Eric Blake wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 12:45:16PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 5/31/23 04:10, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> While analyzing 'union sbuf' in preparation to add more members to the
>>> union, I noticed several things related to __attribute__((packed))
>>> that can b
On 5/31/23 18:04, Eric Blake wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 01:29:30PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
Putting aside alignment even, I don't understand why reducing "count" to
uint16_t would be reasonable. With the current 32-bit-only block
descriptor, we already need to write loops in
On 5/31/23 20:29, Jürgen Hötzel wrote:
>
> "Richard W.M. Jones" writes:
>
>> On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 03:35:38PM +0200, Jürgen Hötzel wrote:
>>> Fixes deadlocks on OCaml5 when trying to get the lock that is already
>>> held:
>>>
>>> Fatal error during lock: Resource deadlock avoided
>>> ---
>>>
36 matches
Mail list logo
