From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2013391689 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 15:35:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 02B0D17C7D for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 15:35:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 15:35:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 93B98492FE for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 15:35:09 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <91d5c687-0545-40fd-867a-02adb5bbbce2@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 15:35:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20240125144149.216064-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20240125144149.216064-7-f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20240125144149.216064-7-f.ebner@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.074 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [nongnu.org] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [HACK qemu 06/13] block/{copy-before-write, snapshot-access}: implement bdrv_co_get_info driver callback X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 14:35:11 -0000 Am 25.01.24 um 15:41 schrieb Fiona Ebner: > In preparation to fix an issue for backup fleecing where discarding > the source would lead to an assertion failure when the fleecing image > has larger granularity than the backup target. > > Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner > --- > > Still need to wait on a response from upstream. For now this hack, so > that the RFC as a whole doesn't have to wait. > >From [0]: > 2. if we need another logic for block_copy_calculate_cluster_size() it should be an option. May be > explicit "copy-cluster-size" or "granularity" option for CBW driver and for backup > job. And we'll just check that given cluster-size is power of two >= target_size. I implemented a new option based on this suggestion and it also resolves the issue. So the hacks will be gone in the next version :) Will also try to upstream the option after v3 of the patch series from [0] is out. [0]: https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2024-01/msg05131.html