Am 03.06.2021 um 09:38 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
On 02/06/21 14:21, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 02.06.2021 um 11:13 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben:
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 05:16:26PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Hi all!
This is my suggestion how to refactor block-copy to avoid extra atomic
operations in
"[PATCH v2 0/7] block-copy: protect block-copy internal structures"
Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy (2):
block-copy: fix block_copy_task_entry() progress update
block-copy: refactor copy_range handling
block/block-copy.c | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
I posted suggestions for the doc comment on Patch 2, otherwise:
Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Thanks, fixed up the comment accordingly and applied to the block
branch.
I'm a bit confused. Vladimir said in his review of Emanuele's patches
that he was okay with patch 7 and that he would rebase this
refactoring on top of it.
Vladimir's main complaint for the s->method state machine was the
extra lines of code. Here we have just as many new lines of code and
new parameters that are passed by reference. Kevin, can you please
look at Emanuele's patches and possibly unqueue the second patch here?
It seems to me that it should have been tagged as RFC.
Sorry, I was not aware that Vladimir intended to rebase this one. This
has already landed in master, so if rebasing the other patch is a real
problem, we'd have to revert this one first.