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 <stefa...@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. Kevin
