[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC Patch v3 16/22] blktap2: move ramdisk related codes to block-replication.c
On Sep 5, 2014 5:32 AM, "Wen Congyang" <wency@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ÂCOLO will reuse them
>
> Signed-off-by: Wen Congyang <wency@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Shriram Rajagopalan <rshriram@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Âtools/blktap2/drivers/block-remus.c   Â| 485 ++----------------------------
> Âtools/blktap2/drivers/block-replication.c | 452 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Âtools/blktap2/drivers/block-replication.h |Â 48 +++
> Â3 files changed, 523 insertions(+), 462 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/blktap2/drivers/block-remus.c b/tools/blktap2/drivers/block-remus.c
> index 8b6f157..2713af1 100644
> --- a/tools/blktap2/drivers/block-remus.c
> +++ b/tools/blktap2/drivers/block-remus.c
...snip..
>
> Âstatic int backup_start(td_driver_t *driver)
> @@ -1120,7 +686,9 @@ static void server_do_wreq(td_driver_t *driver)
> Â Â Â Â if (mread(s->stream_fd.fd, buf, len) < 0)
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â goto err;
>
> -Â Â Â Âif (ramdisk_write(&s->ramdisk, *sector, *sectors, buf) < 0) {
> +Â Â Â Âif (ramdisk_write_to_hashtable(s->h, *sector, *sectors,
Please rename to something else.
Eg, ramdisk flush to disk?
I am fine with the rest of the patch. Have you tested this setup with Remus (not Colo) and ensured that you haven't reintroduced the write after write issue, that was fixed a couple of years ago? Although I don't know how you would test with 4.5 code base.
Acked-by: Shriram Rajagopalan <rshriram@xxxxxxxxx>
(subject to addressing the renaming comment)
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
