On Fri, Aug 05, 2022 at 03:57:49PM +0800, Sam Li wrote: > Putting zoned/non-zoned BlockDrivers on top of each other is not > allowed. > > Signed-off-by: Sam Li <faithilike...@gmail.com> > Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com> > --- > block.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > block/file-posix.c | 1 + > block/raw-format.c | 1 + > include/block/block_int-common.h | 10 ++++++++++ > 4 files changed, 25 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/block.c b/block.c > index bc85f46eed..8a259b158c 100644 > --- a/block.c > +++ b/block.c > @@ -7947,6 +7947,19 @@ void bdrv_add_child(BlockDriverState *parent_bs, > BlockDriverState *child_bs, > return; > } > > + /* > + * Non-zoned block drivers do not follow zoned storage constraints > + * (i.e. sequential writes to zones). Refuse mixing zoned and non-zoned > + * drivers in a graph. > + */ > + if (!parent_bs->drv->supports_zoned_children && child_bs->drv->is_zoned) > { > + error_setg(errp, "Cannot add a %s child to a %s parent", > + child_bs->drv->is_zoned ? "zoned" : "non-zoned", > + parent_bs->drv->supports_zoned_children ? > + "support zoned children" : "not support zoned children"); > + return; > + }
This doesn't handle the case where a filter node (like I/O throttling) is inserted above a raw block driver with a zoned_host_device child. Can we replace child_bs->drv->is_zoned with child_bs->bl.zoned == BLK_Z_HM? I think the is_zoned field is unnecessary. That way the block/raw-format.c .bdrv_refresh_limits() function can propagate its child's zone block limits (including the zone model) and this check will work correctly. Stefan
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature