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
