about subject: shouldn't it be "against disabled bit" instead?
23.02.2019 3:06, John Snow wrote:
> bdrv_set_dirty_bitmap and bdrv_reset_dirty_bitmap are only used as an
> internal API by the mirror and migration areas of our code. These
> calls modify the bitmap, but do so at the behest of QEMU and not the
> guest.
>
> Presently, these bitmaps are always "enabled" anyway, but there's no
> reason they have to be.
>
> Modify these internal APIs to drop this assertion.
>
> Signed-off-by: John Snow <jsnow@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> block/dirty-bitmap.c | 2 --
> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/dirty-bitmap.c b/block/dirty-bitmap.c
> index aa3f86bb73..9ea5738420 100644
> --- a/block/dirty-bitmap.c
> +++ b/block/dirty-bitmap.c
> @@ -542,7 +542,6 @@ int64_t bdrv_dirty_iter_next(BdrvDirtyBitmapIter *iter)
> void bdrv_set_dirty_bitmap_locked(BdrvDirtyBitmap *bitmap,
> int64_t offset, int64_t bytes)
> {
> - assert(bdrv_dirty_bitmap_enabled(bitmap));
> assert(!bdrv_dirty_bitmap_readonly(bitmap));
> hbitmap_set(bitmap->bitmap, offset, bytes);
> }
> @@ -559,7 +558,6 @@ void bdrv_set_dirty_bitmap(BdrvDirtyBitmap *bitmap,
> void bdrv_reset_dirty_bitmap_locked(BdrvDirtyBitmap *bitmap,
> int64_t offset, int64_t bytes)
> {
> - assert(bdrv_dirty_bitmap_enabled(bitmap));
> assert(!bdrv_dirty_bitmap_readonly(bitmap));
> hbitmap_reset(bitmap->bitmap, offset, bytes);
> }
>
--
Best regards,
Vladimir
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
