include/block/dirty-bitmap.h | 9 +- include/qemu/hbitmap.h | 95 +++-------- block/dirty-bitmap.c | 16 +- block/qcow2-bitmap.c | 15 +- nbd/server.c | 251 ++++++++++++++-------------- tests/test-hbitmap.c | 316 +++++++++++++---------------------- util/hbitmap.c | 134 +++++++++------ 7 files changed, 375 insertions(+), 461 deletions(-)
The following changes since commit 6e8a73e911f066527e775e04b98f31ebd19db600: Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/stefanha/tags/block-pull-request' into staging (2020-03-11 14:41:27 +0000) are available in the Git repository at: https://github.com/jnsnow/qemu.git tags/bitmaps-pull-request for you to fetch changes up to 34b456d485a4df3a88116fb5ef0c418f2f12990d: block/qcow2-bitmap: use bdrv_dirty_bitmap_next_dirty (2020-03-12 16:36:46 -0400) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pull request ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy (10): hbitmap: assert that we don't create bitmap larger than INT64_MAX hbitmap: move hbitmap_iter_next_word to hbitmap.c hbitmap: unpublish hbitmap_iter_skip_words hbitmap: drop meta bitmaps as they are unused block/dirty-bitmap: switch _next_dirty_area and _next_zero to int64_t block/dirty-bitmap: add _next_dirty API block/dirty-bitmap: improve _next_dirty_area API nbd/server: introduce NBDExtentArray nbd/server: use bdrv_dirty_bitmap_next_dirty_area block/qcow2-bitmap: use bdrv_dirty_bitmap_next_dirty include/block/dirty-bitmap.h | 9 +- include/qemu/hbitmap.h | 95 +++-------- block/dirty-bitmap.c | 16 +- block/qcow2-bitmap.c | 15 +- nbd/server.c | 251 ++++++++++++++-------------- tests/test-hbitmap.c | 316 +++++++++++++---------------------- util/hbitmap.c | 134 +++++++++------ 7 files changed, 375 insertions(+), 461 deletions(-) -- 2.21.1
On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 at 04:38, John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> The following changes since commit 6e8a73e911f066527e775e04b98f31ebd19db600:
>
> Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/stefanha/tags/block-pull-request' into staging (2020-03-11 14:41:27 +0000)
>
> are available in the Git repository at:
>
> https://github.com/jnsnow/qemu.git tags/bitmaps-pull-request
>
> for you to fetch changes up to 34b456d485a4df3a88116fb5ef0c418f2f12990d:
>
> block/qcow2-bitmap: use bdrv_dirty_bitmap_next_dirty (2020-03-12 16:36:46 -0400)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Pull request
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
Hi; this fails to compile with clang:
/home/petmay01/linaro/qemu-for-merges/nbd/server.c:1937:1: error:
unused function 'glib_listautoptr_cleanup_NBDExtentArray'
[-Werror,-Wunused-function]
G_DEFINE_AUTOPTR_CLEANUP_FUNC(NBDExtentArray, nbd_extent_array_free);
^
/usr/include/glib-2.0/glib/gmacros.h:462:22: note: expanded from macro
'G_DEFINE_AUTOPTR_CLEANUP_FUNC'
static inline void _GLIB_AUTOPTR_LIST_FUNC_NAME(TypeName) (GList
**_l) { g_list_free_full (*_l, (GDestroyNotify) func); } \
^
/usr/include/glib-2.0/glib/gmacros.h:443:48: note: expanded from macro
'_GLIB_AUTOPTR_LIST_FUNC_NAME'
#define _GLIB_AUTOPTR_LIST_FUNC_NAME(TypeName)
glib_listautoptr_cleanup_##TypeName
^
<scratch space>:49:1: note: expanded from here
glib_listautoptr_cleanup_NBDExtentArray
^
thanks
-- PMM
On 3/17/20 9:00 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: >> block/qcow2-bitmap: use bdrv_dirty_bitmap_next_dirty (2020-03-12 16:36:46 -0400) >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> Pull request >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Hi; this fails to compile with clang: > As pointed out here, my recommendation is for John to send a v2 pull request with one more patch added: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-03/msg05969.html -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
On 3/17/20 9:00 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 at 04:38, John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> block/qcow2-bitmap: use bdrv_dirty_bitmap_next_dirty (2020-03-12 16:36:46 -0400)
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Pull request
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hi; this fails to compile with clang:
>
> /home/petmay01/linaro/qemu-for-merges/nbd/server.c:1937:1: error:
> unused function 'glib_listautoptr_cleanup_NBDExtentArray'
> [-Werror,-Wunused-function]
> G_DEFINE_AUTOPTR_CLEANUP_FUNC(NBDExtentArray, nbd_extent_array_free);
> ^
> /usr/include/glib-2.0/glib/gmacros.h:462:22: note: expanded from macro
> 'G_DEFINE_AUTOPTR_CLEANUP_FUNC'
> static inline void _GLIB_AUTOPTR_LIST_FUNC_NAME(TypeName) (GList
> **_l) { g_list_free_full (*_l, (GDestroyNotify) func); } \
> ^
> /usr/include/glib-2.0/glib/gmacros.h:443:48: note: expanded from macro
> '_GLIB_AUTOPTR_LIST_FUNC_NAME'
> #define _GLIB_AUTOPTR_LIST_FUNC_NAME(TypeName)
> glib_listautoptr_cleanup_##TypeName
> ^
> <scratch space>:49:1: note: expanded from here
> glib_listautoptr_cleanup_NBDExtentArray
> ^
Should we add -Wno-unused-function to CFLAGS when dealing with a version
of clang that complains about that version of glib's headers? Is it
fixed in a newer version of glib, where we could just backport a newer
definition of G_DEFINE_AUTOPTR_CLEANUP_FUNC() that adds whatever
annotations are needed to shut the compiler up?
On IRC, danpb pointed me to libvirt's solution:
https://libvirt.org/git/?p=libvirt.git;a=commit;h=44e7f029
Maybe we just write our own macro wrapper around
G_DEFINE_AUTOPTR_CLEANUP_FUNC which takes care of adding necessary
annotations and use that instead (and our macro name might be shorter...)
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 09:40:00AM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 3/17/20 9:00 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 at 04:38, John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > block/qcow2-bitmap: use bdrv_dirty_bitmap_next_dirty (2020-03-12 16:36:46 -0400)
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Pull request
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Hi; this fails to compile with clang:
> >
> > /home/petmay01/linaro/qemu-for-merges/nbd/server.c:1937:1: error:
> > unused function 'glib_listautoptr_cleanup_NBDExtentArray'
> > [-Werror,-Wunused-function]
> > G_DEFINE_AUTOPTR_CLEANUP_FUNC(NBDExtentArray, nbd_extent_array_free);
> > ^
> > /usr/include/glib-2.0/glib/gmacros.h:462:22: note: expanded from macro
> > 'G_DEFINE_AUTOPTR_CLEANUP_FUNC'
> > static inline void _GLIB_AUTOPTR_LIST_FUNC_NAME(TypeName) (GList
> > **_l) { g_list_free_full (*_l, (GDestroyNotify) func); } \
> > ^
> > /usr/include/glib-2.0/glib/gmacros.h:443:48: note: expanded from macro
> > '_GLIB_AUTOPTR_LIST_FUNC_NAME'
> > #define _GLIB_AUTOPTR_LIST_FUNC_NAME(TypeName)
> > glib_listautoptr_cleanup_##TypeName
> > ^
> > <scratch space>:49:1: note: expanded from here
> > glib_listautoptr_cleanup_NBDExtentArray
> > ^
>
> Should we add -Wno-unused-function to CFLAGS when dealing with a version of
> clang that complains about that version of glib's headers? Is it fixed in a
> newer version of glib, where we could just backport a newer definition of
> G_DEFINE_AUTOPTR_CLEANUP_FUNC() that adds whatever annotations are needed to
> shut the compiler up?
>
> On IRC, danpb pointed me to libvirt's solution:
> https://libvirt.org/git/?p=libvirt.git;a=commit;h=44e7f029
>
> Maybe we just write our own macro wrapper around
> G_DEFINE_AUTOPTR_CLEANUP_FUNC which takes care of adding necessary
> annotations and use that instead (and our macro name might be shorter...)
My preference is to stick with regular glib functions/macros whereever
practical, rather than inventing QEMU replacements which add a knowledge
burden for contributors. That's why we moved to -Wno-unused-function in
libvirt.
I don't feel like -Wno-unused-function looses anything significant, as
the GCC builds will still be reporting unused functions which will
catch majority of cases.
Possibly we could figure out a patch for glib upstream that uses pragma
push/pop to squelch the warning ? They are quite receptive to patches
IME.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 at 14:57, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote: > I don't feel like -Wno-unused-function looses anything significant, as > the GCC builds will still be reporting unused functions which will > catch majority of cases. The most interesting difference is that clang will catch unused static inline functions which gcc does not. thanks -- PMM
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 03:00:48PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 at 14:57, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote: > > I don't feel like -Wno-unused-function looses anything significant, as > > the GCC builds will still be reporting unused functions which will > > catch majority of cases. > > The most interesting difference is that clang will catch unused > static inline functions which gcc does not. That's mostly just about dead code cruft detection IIUC. That code won't make it into the binary if it isn't used. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 at 15:05, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 03:00:48PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 at 14:57, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote: > > > I don't feel like -Wno-unused-function looses anything significant, as > > > the GCC builds will still be reporting unused functions which will > > > catch majority of cases. > > > > The most interesting difference is that clang will catch unused > > static inline functions which gcc does not. > > That's mostly just about dead code cruft detection IIUC. That code won't > make it into the binary if it isn't used. Indeed, but it's nice to have the dead code cruft detection. You can always mark the function as __attribute__((unused)) if you really mean that it might be present but not used. thanks -- PMM
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 03:07:34PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 at 15:05, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 03:00:48PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > > > On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 at 14:57, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > I don't feel like -Wno-unused-function looses anything significant, as > > > > the GCC builds will still be reporting unused functions which will > > > > catch majority of cases. > > > > > > The most interesting difference is that clang will catch unused > > > static inline functions which gcc does not. > > > > That's mostly just about dead code cruft detection IIUC. That code won't > > make it into the binary if it isn't used. > > Indeed, but it's nice to have the dead code cruft detection. You > can always mark the function as __attribute__((unused)) if you really > mean that it might be present but not used. The *BSDs seem to track latest glib pretty quickly. So if we got the unused attribute into upstream glib, we would probably have about 6-9 months before we get a build platform with the fixed glib included where we can conditionally re-enable the unused-function warning. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
On 3/17/20 10:11 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 03:07:34PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 at 15:05, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 03:00:48PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>> On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 at 14:57, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> I don't feel like -Wno-unused-function looses anything significant, as >>>>> the GCC builds will still be reporting unused functions which will >>>>> catch majority of cases. >>>> >>>> The most interesting difference is that clang will catch unused >>>> static inline functions which gcc does not. >>> >>> That's mostly just about dead code cruft detection IIUC. That code won't >>> make it into the binary if it isn't used. >> >> Indeed, but it's nice to have the dead code cruft detection. You >> can always mark the function as __attribute__((unused)) if you really >> mean that it might be present but not used. > > The *BSDs seem to track latest glib pretty quickly. So if we got the > unused attribute into upstream glib, we would probably have about > 6-9 months before we get a build platform with the fixed glib included > where we can conditionally re-enable the unused-function warning. Looks like glib commit https://github.com/GNOME/glib/commit/b41bff1f (2.57.2) added G_GNUC_UNUSED to all of the functions declared during G_DEFINE_AUTOPTR_CLEANUP_FUNC. Which version of glib is on the NetBSD machine? -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.