We've been documenting the value in bytes since its introduction
in commit b9a9b3a4 (v1.3), where it was actually reported in bytes.
Commit e4654d2 (v2.0) then removed things from block/qapi.c, in
preparation for a rewrite to a list of dirty sectors in the next
commit 21b5683 in block.c, but the new code mistakenly started
reporting in sectors.
Fixes: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1441460
CC: qemu-stable@nongnu.org
Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>
---
Too late for 2.9, since the regression has been unnoticed for
nine releases. But worth putting in 2.9.1 and 2.10.
v2-v4: no change
---
block/dirty-bitmap.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/block/dirty-bitmap.c b/block/dirty-bitmap.c
index 543bddb9b5..30462d4f9a 100644
--- a/block/dirty-bitmap.c
+++ b/block/dirty-bitmap.c
@@ -461,7 +461,7 @@ BlockDirtyInfoList *bdrv_query_dirty_bitmaps(BlockDriverState *bs)
QLIST_FOREACH(bm, &bs->dirty_bitmaps, list) {
BlockDirtyInfo *info = g_new0(BlockDirtyInfo, 1);
BlockDirtyInfoList *entry = g_new0(BlockDirtyInfoList, 1);
- info->count = bdrv_get_dirty_count(bm);
+ info->count = bdrv_get_dirty_count(bm) << BDRV_SECTOR_BITS;
info->granularity = bdrv_dirty_bitmap_granularity(bm);
info->has_name = !!bm->name;
info->name = g_strdup(bm->name);
--
2.13.3
On 07/21/2017 02:32 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > We've been documenting the value in bytes since its introduction > in commit b9a9b3a4 (v1.3), where it was actually reported in bytes. > > Commit e4654d2 (v2.0) then removed things from block/qapi.c, in > preparation for a rewrite to a list of dirty sectors in the next > commit 21b5683 in block.c, but the new code mistakenly started > reporting in sectors. > > Fixes: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1441460 > > CC: qemu-stable@nongnu.org > Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> > Reviewed-by: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com> > I must have forgotten about this -- Didn't this get reviewed as part of your byte series? Is this a resend for a stable branch? > --- > Too late for 2.9, since the regression has been unnoticed for > nine releases. But worth putting in 2.9.1 and 2.10. > > v2-v4: no change > --- > block/dirty-bitmap.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/block/dirty-bitmap.c b/block/dirty-bitmap.c > index 543bddb9b5..30462d4f9a 100644 > --- a/block/dirty-bitmap.c > +++ b/block/dirty-bitmap.c > @@ -461,7 +461,7 @@ BlockDirtyInfoList *bdrv_query_dirty_bitmaps(BlockDriverState *bs) > QLIST_FOREACH(bm, &bs->dirty_bitmaps, list) { > BlockDirtyInfo *info = g_new0(BlockDirtyInfo, 1); > BlockDirtyInfoList *entry = g_new0(BlockDirtyInfoList, 1); > - info->count = bdrv_get_dirty_count(bm); > + info->count = bdrv_get_dirty_count(bm) << BDRV_SECTOR_BITS; > info->granularity = bdrv_dirty_bitmap_granularity(bm); > info->has_name = !!bm->name; > info->name = g_strdup(bm->name); > -- —js
On 07/25/2017 04:28 PM, John Snow wrote: > > > On 07/21/2017 02:32 PM, Eric Blake wrote: >> We've been documenting the value in bytes since its introduction >> in commit b9a9b3a4 (v1.3), where it was actually reported in bytes. >> >> Commit e4654d2 (v2.0) then removed things from block/qapi.c, in >> preparation for a rewrite to a list of dirty sectors in the next >> commit 21b5683 in block.c, but the new code mistakenly started >> reporting in sectors. >> >> Fixes: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1441460 >> >> CC: qemu-stable@nongnu.org >> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> >> Reviewed-by: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com> >> > > I must have forgotten about this -- Didn't this get reviewed as part of > your byte series? Is this a resend for a stable branch? Yes, it was reviewed during my part 2-of-4 series on byte-base block status (the dirty bitmap series). Series 1 made it into 2.10, but series 2-4 did not; ergo, I filtered out the true bug-fixes that were still worthy post-freeze. -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
On 07/25/2017 05:37 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 07/25/2017 04:28 PM, John Snow wrote: >> >> >> On 07/21/2017 02:32 PM, Eric Blake wrote: >>> We've been documenting the value in bytes since its introduction >>> in commit b9a9b3a4 (v1.3), where it was actually reported in bytes. >>> >>> Commit e4654d2 (v2.0) then removed things from block/qapi.c, in >>> preparation for a rewrite to a list of dirty sectors in the next >>> commit 21b5683 in block.c, but the new code mistakenly started >>> reporting in sectors. >>> >>> Fixes: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1441460 >>> >>> CC: qemu-stable@nongnu.org >>> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> >>> Reviewed-by: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com> >>> >> >> I must have forgotten about this -- Didn't this get reviewed as part of >> your byte series? Is this a resend for a stable branch? > > Yes, it was reviewed during my part 2-of-4 series on byte-base block > status (the dirty bitmap series). Series 1 made it into 2.10, but > series 2-4 did not; ergo, I filtered out the true bug-fixes that were > still worthy post-freeze. > Thanks for the clarification. Short term memory is a little strapped right now due to my move. ACK
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.