On 12.09.2016 21:19, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 09/09/2016 04:30 PM, John Ferlan wrote:
>
>>>
>>> + /* Fix job completeness reporting. If cur == end mgmt
>>> + * applications think job is completed. Except when both cur
>>> + * and end are zero, in which case qemu hasn't started the
>>> + * job yet. */
>>> + if (!info->cur && !info->end) {
>
> We get here if qemu reports 0/0 (or if qemu reports nothing, and we end
> up with 0/0 because we 0-initialized the object)...
>
>>> + if (rawInfo->ready > 0) {
>>> + info->cur = info->end = 1;
>
> if qemu reported done (on a no-op job), then we fudge to 1/1 and the
> caller knows we are done...
>
>>> + } else if (rawInfo->ready < 0) {
>>> + info->end = 1;
>
> if qemu didn't tell us it was ready, then we fudge to 0/1.
>
> I thought the original email thread was that if rawInfo->ready == 0
> (qemu explicitly told us it is NOT done) that we want to fudge to 0/1,
> and then the real question is that if qemu tells us nothing at all about
> rawInfo->ready, then fudging MIGHT treat a no-op job as never ending, so
> it was better to leave it at 0/0 (an application getting 0/0 when
> talking to new-enough libvirt then knows it is talking to older qemu).
> In other words, I think this condition is slightly better as
> rawInfo->ready == 0, and leave the rawInfo->ready < 0 case as 0/0.
>
> Or am I misremembering the results of the earlier thread?
So, just to make it crystal clear, is this what you're saying?
ready | initial C/R |fudged C/R
------+-------------+----------
< 0 | 0/0 | 0/0
= 0 | 0/0 | 0/1
> 0 | 0/0 | 1/1
Michal
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list