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

Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy posted 2 patches 2 years, 10 months ago
Patches applied successfully (tree, apply log)
git fetch https://github.com/patchew-project/next-importer-push tags/patchew/20210528141628.44287-1-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com
Maintainers: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>, Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>
block/block-copy.c | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
[PATCH 0/2] block-copy: small fix and refactor
Posted by Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy 2 years, 10 months ago
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(-)

-- 
2.29.2


Re: [PATCH 0/2] block-copy: small fix and refactor
Posted by Stefan Hajnoczi 2 years, 10 months ago
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>
Re: [PATCH 0/2] block-copy: small fix and refactor
Posted by Kevin Wolf 2 years, 10 months ago
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.

Kevin
Re: [PATCH 0/2] block-copy: small fix and refactor
Posted by Paolo Bonzini 2 years, 10 months ago
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/