Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] sheepdog: adopting protocol update for VDI locking

[Liu Yuan]

On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 03:12:17PM +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
> At Fri, 8 Aug 2014 13:20:39 +0800,
> Liu Yuan wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 04:28:39PM +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
> > > The update is required for supporting iSCSI multipath. It doesn't
> > > affect behavior of QEMU driver but adding a new field to vdi request
> > > struct is required.
> > > 
> > > Cc: Kevin Wolf <address@hidden>
> > > Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <address@hidden>
> > > Cc: Liu Yuan <address@hidden>
> > > Cc: MORITA Kazutaka <address@hidden>
> > > Signed-off-by: Hitoshi Mitake <address@hidden>
> > > ---
> > >  block/sheepdog.c | 8 +++++++-
> > >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/block/sheepdog.c b/block/sheepdog.c
> > > index 8d9350c..36f76f0 100644
> > > --- a/block/sheepdog.c
> > > +++ b/block/sheepdog.c
> > > @@ -103,6 +103,9 @@
> > >  #define SD_INODE_SIZE (sizeof(SheepdogInode))
> > >  #define CURRENT_VDI_ID 0
> > >  
> > > +#define LOCK_TYPE_NORMAL 1
> > > +#define LOCK_TYPE_SHARED 2      /* for iSCSI multipath */
> > 
> > How about
> > 
> > #define LOCK_TYPE_NORMAL 0
> > #define LOCK_TYPE_SHARED 1
> > 
> > Then we don't need this patch. Since qemu won't make use of multipath for 
> > the
> > near future, we should avoid adding stuff related to multipath to qemu 
> > driver.
> 
> (Cc-ing current Kazutaka-san's address)
> 
> I think this isn't a good idea. Because it means that sheep has an
> assumption about padding field of the request data struct. This sort
> of workaround can cause hard to find problems in the future.
> 

The point is, how to keep backward compatibilty? E.g, old QEMU with present
sheep daemon with lock features. Then QEMU will send 0 instead of 1 to the sheep
daemon and based on how you handle the invalid value, these might cause 
problems.

Suppose we have 1 old QEMU and 1 present QEMU who try to start the same image A.
Old QEMU will send invalid 0 to sheep daemon. We shouldn't deny it because it
can run with old sheep and should run on new sheep too. Then this image A isn't
locked due to invalid 0 value. Then present QEMU send correct LOCK signal and
will wrongly set up the image.

Start with 0 instead of 1, in my option, is reasonable to keep backward
compatibility.

Thanks
Yuan