Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 16/29] block: add bdrv_load_dirty_bitmap()

[Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>]

Am 08.08.2016 um 17:05 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben:
> The funcion loads dirty bitmap from file, using underlying driver
> function.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
> ---
>  block/dirty-bitmap.c         | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>  include/block/dirty-bitmap.h |  2 ++
>  2 files changed, 18 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/block/dirty-bitmap.c b/block/dirty-bitmap.c
> index 6df7fe1..1d0ea25 100644
> --- a/block/dirty-bitmap.c
> +++ b/block/dirty-bitmap.c
> @@ -597,3 +597,19 @@ void bdrv_finalize_persistent_dirty_bitmaps(BlockDriverState *bs)
>          }
>      }
>  }
> +
> +BdrvDirtyBitmap *bdrv_load_dirty_bitmap(BlockDriverState *bs, const char *name,
> +                                        Error **errp)
> +{
> +    BlockDriver *drv = bs->drv;
> +    if (!drv) {
> +        return NULL;
> +    }
> +    if (drv->bdrv_dirty_bitmap_load) {
> +        return drv->bdrv_dirty_bitmap_load(bs, name, errp);

Why the inconsistency between load_dirty and dirty_load? The bdrv_*
wrappers usually have exactly the same name as the BlockDriver fields.

> +    }
> +    if (bs->file)  {
> +        return bdrv_load_dirty_bitmap(bs, name, errp);
> +    }
> +    return NULL;
> +}

Let me ask a general question about this series: What is the expected
state after it is applied?

I'm asking because even after the full series is applied, I don't see a
single user of bdrv_load_dirty_bitmap(), bdrv_load_check_dirty_bitmap()
or bdrv_store_dirty_bitmap(). Is all of this dead code?

Kevin