On 04/07/2017 08:47 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > The assertion is currently failing. We can't require callers to have > write permissions when all they are doing is a read, so comment it out. > Add a FIXME comment in the code so that the check is re-enabled when > copy on read is refactored into its own filter driver. > > Reported-by: Richard W.M. Jones <rjo...@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> > Reviewed-by: Richard W.M. Jones <rjo...@redhat.com> > --- > block/io.c | 9 ++++++++- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/block/io.c b/block/io.c > index 2709a70..7321dda 100644 > --- a/block/io.c > +++ b/block/io.c > @@ -945,7 +945,14 @@ static int coroutine_fn > bdrv_co_do_copy_on_readv(BdrvChild *child, > size_t skip_bytes; > int ret; > > - assert(child->perm & (BLK_PERM_WRITE_UNCHANGED | BLK_PERM_WRITE)); > + /* FIXME We cannot require callers to have write permissions when all > they > + * are doing is a read request. If we did things right, write permissions > + * would be obtained anyway, but internally by the copy-on-read code. As > + * long as it is implemented here rather than in a separat filter driver,
Is there time to fix the typo before the pull happens? -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
