At Wed, 06 Jul 2011 09:53:32 +0200,
Kevin Wolf wrote:
>
> Am 05.07.2011 20:21, schrieb MORITA Kazutaka:
> >>> +
> >>> + max_idx = (vdi_size + SD_DATA_OBJ_SIZE - 1) / SD_DATA_OBJ_SIZE;
> >>> +
> >>> + for (idx = 0; idx < max_idx; idx++) {
> >>> + uint64_t oid;
> >>> + oid = vid_to_data_oid(vid, idx);
> >>> +
> >>> + if (inode->data_vdi_id[idx]) {
> >>> + ret = read_object(fd, buf, vid_to_vdi_oid(inode->data_vdi_id[idx]),
> >>> + 1, SD_DATA_OBJ_SIZE, 0);
> >>> + if (ret)
> >>> + goto out;
> >>
> >> Missing braces.
> >>
> >> Also, what is this if branch doing? Is it to ensure that we don't
> >> overwrite existing data? But then, isn't an image always empty when we
> >> preallocate it?
> >
> > This branch is for handling a cloned image, which is created with -b
> > option. This branch reads data from the backing file (read_object
> > returns zero when it succeeds) instead of filling buffer with zero.
>
> Oh, I see. You support preallocation even with backing files. And
> suddenly it makes perfect sense. :-)
>
> (Although after completing preallocation, you won't need the backing
> file any more as all of it has been copied into the image. Maybe we
> should drop the reference then?)
Though we can drop it, Sheepdog uses the reference to show the VM
image relationships in a tree format as VMware does. So as far as a
Sheepdog protocol is concerned, I think we should keep it.
Thanks,
Kazutaka
|
|