Il 21/08/2013 10:20, Laszlo Ersek ha scritto: > On 08/20/13 10:21, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> Am 16.08.2013 um 16:15 hat Laszlo Ersek geschrieben: >>> Paolo asked me to write such a driver based on his textual specification >>> alone. The first patch captures his email in full, the rest re-quotes >>> parts that are being implemented. >>> >>> The tree compiles at each patch. The series passes "make check-block". >>> >>> "block/raw.c" is not removed because I wanted to keep it out of my >>> series and out of my brain. >>> >>> Disclaimer: I couldn't care less if the raw block driver was public >>> domain or AGPLv3+, as long as it qualifies as free software. I'm only >>> trying to do what Paolo asked of me. >>> >>> Laszlo Ersek (7): >>> add skeleton for BSD licensed "raw" BlockDriver >>> raw_bsd: emit debug events in bdrv_co_readv() and bdrv_co_writev() >>> raw_bsd: add raw_create() >>> raw_bsd: introduce "special members" >>> raw_bsd: add raw_create_options >>> raw_bsd: register bdrv_raw >>> switch raw block driver from "raw.o" to "raw_bsd.o" >>> >>> block/Makefile.objs | 2 +- >>> block/raw_bsd.c | 186 >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 2 files changed, 187 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >>> create mode 100644 block/raw_bsd.c >> >> Reviewed if the individual added functions make sense, whether all >> necessary function from struct BlockDriver are implemented, and which >> fields from BlockDriverState need special handling (it's only bs->sg, >> and we should probably get rid of that requirement) >> >> Looks good in general, but please CC Stefan and me for v2 (like for all >> block patches). > > Thanks for the review. > > Regarding your comments for 4/7: can we postpone the bdrv_is_sg() change > to another series?
I think it should be done like that. > Because, I can't just rebase / update this series as a "normal" series > -- v2 will still be a "clean room reimplementation", and I must keep > full history (basically, a documentation of the "clean room process") in > the commit log. > > So, Paolo's suggestion for 7/7 (ie. raw_reopen_prepare() should just > return 0) will be a separate 8/8, with his email quoted as commit > message. (Normally I would just squash the change and add a short v2 > note *outside* the commit log, but that's exactly what we can't do here.) > > ... Maybe I can still squash the change into 7/7, and extend only the > commit message with Paolo's email, since that includes the wrong v1 code > too. Yes, just squash it. Paolo
