On Wed 25 Apr 2018 01:18:03 PM CEST, Max Reitz wrote: >>> +#define PERM_PASSTHROUGH (BLK_PERM_CONSISTENT_READ \ >>> + | BLK_PERM_WRITE \ >>> + | BLK_PERM_RESIZE) >>> +#define PERM_UNCHANGED (BLK_PERM_ALL & ~PERM_PASSTHROUGH) >>> + >>> +static void cor_child_perm(BlockDriverState *bs, BdrvChild *c, >>> + const BdrvChildRole *role, >>> + BlockReopenQueue *reopen_queue, >>> + uint64_t perm, uint64_t shared, >>> + uint64_t *nperm, uint64_t *nshared) >>> +{ >>> + if (c == NULL) { >>> + *nperm = (perm & PERM_PASSTHROUGH) | BLK_PERM_WRITE_UNCHANGED; >>> + *nshared = (shared & PERM_PASSTHROUGH) | PERM_UNCHANGED; >>> + return; >>> + } >>> + >>> + *nperm = (perm & PERM_PASSTHROUGH) | >>> + (c->perm & PERM_UNCHANGED); >> >> I admit I'm not completely familiar with this, but don't you need to >> add BLK_PERM_WRITE_UNCHANGED to *nperm ? > > As long as it's requested in when the child is attached (which it is > in the "c == NULL" case), it should be part of c->perm then. > > (And since PERM_PASSTHROUGH does not contain WRITE_UNCHANGED, it is > part of PERM_UNCHANGED.)
I see, thanks. Reviewed-by: Alberto Garcia <be...@igalia.com> Berto