| Message ID | 1525791496-125188-3-git-send-email-anton.nefedov@virtuozzo.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 05/08/2018 09:58 AM, Anton Nefedov wrote: > Signed-off-by: Anton Nefedov <anton.nefedov@virtuozzo.com> > Reviewed-by: Alberto Garcia <berto@igalia.com> > Reviewed-by: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com> > --- > block/blkverify.c | 9 +++++++++ > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/block/blkverify.c b/block/blkverify.c > index 754cc9e..496ae09 100644 > --- a/block/blkverify.c > +++ b/block/blkverify.c > @@ -141,6 +141,15 @@ static int blkverify_open(BlockDriverState *bs, QDict *options, int flags, > goto fail; > } > > + bs->supported_write_flags = BDRV_REQ_FUA & > + bs->file->bs->supported_write_flags & > + s->test_file->bs->supported_write_flags; I wonder if it's worth the effort to support the flags if the main file supports them natively but the test_file does not (and just emulate the flag on the test file, in that situation). But for now, I'm fine with your choice that both files must support a flag before the blkverify layer claims the flag as well. > + > + bs->supported_zero_flags = > + (BDRV_REQ_FUA | BDRV_REQ_MAY_UNMAP) & > + bs->file->bs->supported_zero_flags & > + s->test_file->bs->supported_zero_flags; > + > ret = 0; > fail: > qemu_opts_del(opts); >
diff --git a/block/blkverify.c b/block/blkverify.c index 754cc9e..496ae09 100644 --- a/block/blkverify.c +++ b/block/blkverify.c @@ -141,6 +141,15 @@ static int blkverify_open(BlockDriverState *bs, QDict *options, int flags, goto fail; } + bs->supported_write_flags = BDRV_REQ_FUA & + bs->file->bs->supported_write_flags & + s->test_file->bs->supported_write_flags; + + bs->supported_zero_flags = + (BDRV_REQ_FUA | BDRV_REQ_MAY_UNMAP) & + bs->file->bs->supported_zero_flags & + s->test_file->bs->supported_zero_flags; + ret = 0; fail: qemu_opts_del(opts);