On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 14:49:29 +0200 Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 05.10.19 15:05, Lukas Straub wrote: > > After failover the Secondary side of replication shouldn't change state, > > because > > it now functions as our primary disk. > > > > In replication_start, replication_do_checkpoint, replication_stop, ignore > > the request if current state is BLOCK_REPLICATION_DONE (sucessful failover) > > or > > BLOCK_REPLICATION_FAILOVER (failover in progres i.e. currently merging > > active > > and hidden images into the base image). > > > > Signed-off-by: Lukas Straub <lukasstra...@web.de> > > Reviewed-by: Zhang Chen <chen.zh...@intel.com> > > --- > > block/replication.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > > 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > Disclaimer: I don’t know anything about the replication block driver. > > > diff --git a/block/replication.c b/block/replication.c > > index 3d4dedddfc..97cc65c0cf 100644 > > --- a/block/replication.c > > +++ b/block/replication.c > > [...] > > > @@ -529,8 +540,7 @@ static void replication_start(ReplicationState *rs, > > ReplicationMode mode, > > "Block device is in use by internal backup job"); > > > > top_bs = bdrv_lookup_bs(s->top_id, s->top_id, NULL); > > - if (!top_bs || !bdrv_is_root_node(top_bs) || > > - !check_top_bs(top_bs, bs)) { > > + if (!top_bs || !check_top_bs(top_bs, bs)) { > > It appears to me that top_bs is only used to install op blockers. It > seems reasonable to require a root node to be able to do so (because op > blockers are really only checked on a root node). > (And the commit message doesn’t tell why we’d want to drop the > is_root_node check here.) > > Now OTOH I don’t know whether the replication driver needs an op blocker > at all or whether the permission system suffices... Hi, Now that I look at again, it actually works without this change, by passing a correct top-id= parameter to the driver (I somehow overlooked that parameter). So I will revert this change in the next version. > > I suppose the rest of this patch is not really about the block layer, so > I can’t really comment on it. (It looks OK to me from a generic and > naïve standpoint, though.) > > > error_setg(errp, "No top_bs or it is invalid"); > > reopen_backing_file(bs, false, NULL); > > aio_context_release(aio_context); > > [...] > > > @@ -593,7 +614,7 @@ static void replication_get_error(ReplicationState *rs, > > Error **errp) > > aio_context_acquire(aio_context); > > s = bs->opaque; > > > > - if (s->stage != BLOCK_REPLICATION_RUNNING) { > > + if (s->stage == BLOCK_REPLICATION_NONE) { > > Just one question out of curiosity, though: Is this a bug fix? No, It only applies to continuous replication, because colo will check all replication nodes for errors before checkpointing. So a secondary continuing replication would error out here, because it is either in state BLOCK_REPLICATION_DONE or BLOCK_REPLICATION_FAILOVER. > Max > > > error_setg(errp, "Block replication is not running"); > > aio_context_release(aio_context); > > return; >