[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v2 03/20] qapi: backup: add x-use-copy-range parameter
From: |
Max Reitz |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v2 03/20] qapi: backup: add x-use-copy-range parameter |
Date: |
Fri, 17 Jul 2020 15:15:23 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 |
On 01.06.20 20:11, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> Add parameter to enable/disable copy_range. Keep current default for
> now (enabled).
Why x-, though? I can’t think of a reason why we would have to remove this.
> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
> ---
> qapi/block-core.json | 4 +++-
> block/backup-top.h | 1 +
> include/block/block-copy.h | 2 +-
> include/block/block_int.h | 1 +
> block/backup-top.c | 4 +++-
> block/backup.c | 4 +++-
> block/block-copy.c | 4 ++--
> block/replication.c | 1 +
> blockdev.c | 5 +++++
> 9 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/qapi/block-core.json b/qapi/block-core.json
> index 6fbacddab2..0c7600e4ec 100644
> --- a/qapi/block-core.json
> +++ b/qapi/block-core.json
> @@ -1405,6 +1405,8 @@
> # above node specified by @drive. If this option is not
> given,
> # a node name is autogenerated. (Since: 4.2)
> #
> +# @x-use-copy-range: use copy offloading if possible. Default true. (Since
> 5.1)
Would it make more sense to invert it to disable-copy-range? First,
this would make for a cleaner meaning, because it would allow dropping
the “if possible” part. Setting use-copy-range=true would intuitively
imply to me that I get an error if copy-range cannot be used. Sure,
there’s this little “if possible” in the documentation, but it goes
against my intuition. disable-copy-range=true is intuitively clear.
Second, this would give us a default of false, which is marginally nicer.
Max
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Re: [PATCH v2 03/20] qapi: backup: add x-use-copy-range parameter,
Max Reitz <=