On Thu, 05/26 11:20, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 26/05/2016 10:30, Fam Zheng wrote: > >> > > >> > This doesn't look too wrong... Should the right sequence of events be > >> > head/after_head or head/after_tail? It's probably simplest to just emit > >> > all four events. > > I've no idea. (That's why I leaned towards fixing the test case). > > Well, fixing the testcase means knowing what events should be emitted. > > QEMU with Peter's patch emits head/after_head. If the right one is > head/after_tail, _both QEMU and the testcase_ need to be adjusted. Your > patch keeps the backwards-compatible route.
Yes, I mean I was not very convinced in tweaking the events at all: each pair of them has been emitted around bdrv_aligned_preadv(), and the new branch doesn't do it anymore. So I don't see a reason to add events here. Fam
