On 13.09.2016 11:52, Michal Privoznik wrote:
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
Oh, This should have been C/E instead of C/R. Current/End. 'e' and 'r' keys are just too close to each other :-)
------+-------------+---------- < 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 = 0 | 0/0 | 0/1
0 | 0/0 | 1/1
Michal