Am 28.04.2020 um 18:46 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben: > 28.04.2020 19:18, Eric Blake wrote: > > On 4/28/20 10:13 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > > > > > > > Hm. I could imagine that there are formats that have non-zero holes > > > > > (e.g. 0xff or just garbage). It would be a bit wrong for them to > > > > > return > > > > > ZERO or DATA then. > > > > > > > > > > But OTOH we don’t care about such cases, do we? We need to know > > > > > whether > > > > > ranges are zero, data, or unallocated. If they aren’t zero, we only > > > > > care about whether reading from it will return data from this layer > > > > > or not. > > > > > > > > > > So I suppose that anything that doesn’t support backing files (or > > > > > filtered children) should always return ZERO and/or DATA. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure I agree with the notion that everything should be > > > > BDRV_BLOCK_ALLOCATED at the lowest layer. It's not what it means today > > > > at least. If we want to change this, we will have to check all callers > > > > of bdrv_is_allocated() and friends who might use this to find holes in > > > > the file. > > > > > > Yes. Because they are doing incorrect (or at least undocumented and > > > unreliable) thing. > > > > Here's some previous mails discussing the same question about what > > block_status should actually mean. At the time, I was so scared of the > > prospect of something breaking if I changed things that I ended up keeping > > status quo, so here we are revisiting the topic several years later, still > > asking the same questions. > > > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-12/msg00069.html > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-02/msg03757.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > Basically, the way bdrv_is_allocated() works today is that we assume an > > > > implicit zeroed backing layer even for block drivers that don't support > > > > backing files. > > > > > > But read doesn't work so: it will read data from the bottom layer, not > > > from > > > this implicit zeroed backing layer. And it is inconsistent. On read data > > > comes exactly from this layer, not from its implicit backing. So it should > > > return BDRV_BLOCK_ALLOCATED, accordingly to its definition.. > > > > > > Or, we should at least document current behavior: > > > > > > BDRV_BLOCK_ALLOCATED: the content of the block is determined by this > > > layer rather than any backing, set by block. Attention: it may not be > > > set > > > for drivers without backing support, still data is of course read from > > > this layer. Note, that for such drivers BDRV_BLOCK_ALLOCATED may mean > > > allocation on fs level, which occupies real space on disk.. So, for > > > such drivers > > > > > > ZERO | ALLOCATED means that, read as zero, data may be allocated on > > > fs, or > > > (most probably) not, > > > don't look at ALLOCATED flag, as it is added by generic layer for > > > another logic, > > > not related to fs-allocation. > > > > > > 0 means that, most probably, data doesn't occupy space on fs, > > > zero-status is > > > unknown (most probably non-zero) > > > > > > > That may be right in describing the current situation, but again, > > needs a GOOD audit of what we are actually using it for, and whether > > it is what we really WANT to be using it for. If we're going to > > audit/refactor the code, we might as well get semantics that are > > actually useful, rather than painfully contorted to documentation > > that happens to match our current contorted code. > > > > Honest enough:) I'll try to make a table. > > I don't think that reporting fs-allocation status is a bad thing. But > I'm sure that it should be separated from backing-chain-allocated > concept.
I think we could easily agree on what would be a good concept. My concern is just that existing code probably uses existing semantics and not what we consider more logical now. So if we change it, we must make sure that we change all places that expect the old semantics. Kevin
