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

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH v2 11/38] Introduce virStreamSkip




On 05/12/2017 03:29 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 05/05/2017 04:48 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 01:25:34PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>>> On 05/04/2017 11:29 PM, John Ferlan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 04/20/2017 06:01 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>>>>> This API can be used to tell the other side of the stream to skip
>>>>
>>>> s/can be/is  (unless it can be used for something else ;-))
>>>>
>>>>> some bytes in the stream. This can be used to create a sparse
>>>>> file on the receiving side of a stream.
>>>>>
>>>>> It takes just one argument @length, which says how big the hole
>>>>> is. Since our streams are not rewindable like regular files, we
>>>>> don't need @whence argument like seek(2) has.
>>>>
>>>> lseek is an implementation detail...  However, it could be stated that
>>>> the skipping would be from the current point in the file forward by some
>>>> number of bytes.  It's expected to be used in conjunction with code that
>>>> is copying over the real (or non-zero) data and should be considered an
>>>> optimization over sending zere data segments.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn redhat com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  include/libvirt/libvirt-stream.h |  3 +++
>>>>>  src/driver-stream.h              |  5 ++++
>>>>>  src/libvirt-stream.c             | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>  src/libvirt_public.syms          |  1 +
>>>>>  4 files changed, 66 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> While it would be unused for now, should @flags be added.  Who knows
>>>> what use it could have, but avoids a new Flags API, but does cause a few
>>>> other wording changes here.
>>>
>>> Ah sure. We should have @flags there. Good point.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps it's just me - but "Skip" and "HoleSize" just seem awkward.
>>>> Would "virStreamSetSkip" and "virStreamGetSkip" be more apropos? (or
>>>> s/Skip/HoleSize/ - ewww). Names would then follow our more recent
>>>> function naming guidelines. I think I dislike the HoleSize much more
>>>> than the Skip.
>>>
>>> SetSkip and GetSkip sound wrong to me instead :D
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/include/libvirt/libvirt-stream.h b/include/libvirt/libvirt-stream.h
>>>>> index bee2516..4e0a599 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/libvirt/libvirt-stream.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/libvirt/libvirt-stream.h
>>>>> @@ -50,6 +50,9 @@ int virStreamRecvFlags(virStreamPtr st,
>>>>>                         size_t nbytes,
>>>>>                         unsigned int flags);
>>>>>  
>>>>> +int virStreamSkip(virStreamPtr st,
>>>>> +                  unsigned long long length);
>>>>
>>>> Was there consideration for using 'off_t' instead of ULL? I know it's an
>>>> implementation detail of virFDStreamData and lseek() usage, but it does
>>>> hide things... IDC either way.
>>>
>>> The problem with off_t is that it is signed type, while ULL is unsigned.
>>> There's not much point in sending a negative offset, is there?
>>> Moreover, we use ULL for arguments like offset (not sure really why).
>>> Frankly, I don't really know why. Perhaps some types don't exist everywhere?
>>
>> If anything, we would use  size_t, for consistency with the Send/Recv
>> methods. 
> 
> So I've given this some though and ran some experiments. On a 32bit arch
> I've found this:
> 
> long long 8 signed
> size_t 4 unsigned
> ssize_t 4 signed
> off_t 4 signed
> 
> So size_t is 4 bytes long and long long is 8 bytes. This got me
> thinking, size_t type makes sense for those APIs where we need to
> address individual bytes. But what would happen if I have the following
> file on a 32 bit arch:
> 
> [2MB data] -> [5GB hole] -> [2M data]

Would a 5.4G file exist on a 32b arch since the OS couldn't address it
nor could it get anything beyond 4GB-1 as a size and then only if using
unsigned as the sizing...  It's been far too long since I worked on 32
bit arches (or less).  The 90's are over aren't they ;-)

John

> 
> The hole does not fit into size_t, but it would fit into long long. On
> the other hand, we are very likely to hit lseek() error as off_t is 4
> bytes also (WTF?!). On a 64 bit arch everything is as expected:
> 
> long long 8 signed
> size_t 8 unsigned
> ssize_t 8 signed
> off_t 8 signed
> 
> So after all, I think I can switch to size_t. I'm just really surprised
> to learn that off_t is 4 bytes on a 32 bit arch.
> 
> Michal
> 
> --
> libvir-list mailing list
> libvir-list redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
> 


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