Re: [PATCH 0/2] block-copy: small fix and refactor

[Paolo Bonzini]

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.

Paolo

[1] 
https://patchew.org/QEMU/20210518100757.31243-1-eesposit@redhat.com/20210518100757.31243-8-eesposit@redhat.com/