[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 1/3] Simplify allocation check in storageVolResize



On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 03:03:04PM -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
> 
> 
> On 05/27/2015 11:08 AM, Ján Tomko wrote:
> > The volume cannot be shrinked below existing allocation, thus
> > a successful resize with VOL_RESIZE_ALLOCATE will never increase
> > the pool's available value.
> 
> Since shrinking a volume below existing allocation is not allowed, it is
> not possible for a successful resize with VOL_RESIZE_ALLOCATE to
> increase the pool's available value.
> 

Thanks, that's much clearer.

> > 
> > Even with the SHRINK flag it is possible to extend the current
> > allocation or even the capacity. Remove the overflow when
> > computing delta with this flag and do the check even if the
> > flag was specified.
> > 
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1073305
> 
> Editorial comment:
> 
> This bz should go back to POST...
> 
> > ---
> >  src/storage/storage_driver.c | 21 +++++----------------
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/src/storage/storage_driver.c b/src/storage/storage_driver.c
> > index ac4a74a..fbb8050 100644
> > --- a/src/storage/storage_driver.c
> > +++ b/src/storage/storage_driver.c
> > @@ -2292,7 +2292,7 @@ storageVolResize(virStorageVolPtr obj,
> >      virStorageBackendPtr backend;
> >      virStoragePoolObjPtr pool = NULL;
> >      virStorageVolDefPtr vol = NULL;
> > -    unsigned long long abs_capacity, delta;
> > +    unsigned long long abs_capacity, delta = 0;
> >      int ret = -1;
> >  
> >      virCheckFlags(VIR_STORAGE_VOL_RESIZE_ALLOCATE |
> > @@ -2341,18 +2341,14 @@ storageVolResize(virStorageVolPtr obj,
> >          goto cleanup;
> >      }
> >  
> > -    if (flags & VIR_STORAGE_VOL_RESIZE_SHRINK)
> > -        delta = vol->target.allocation - abs_capacity;
> > -    else
> > +    if (flags & VIR_STORAGE_VOL_RESIZE_ALLOCATE)
> >          delta = abs_capacity - vol->target.allocation;
> >  
> >      /* If the operation is going to increase the allocation value and not
> >       * just the capacity value, then let's make sure there's enough space
> >       * in the pool in order to perform that operation
> >       */
> 
> The comment won't make sense any more as well.
> 
> ACK
> 

I removed the commend and pushed the first two patches.
The third one does not fix a bug and can wait for the next release.

Jan

> I would think safe for freeze
> 
> John

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]