On 01.06.20 20:11, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > Add parameter to enable/disable copy_range. Keep current default for > now (enabled).
Why x-, though? I can’t think of a reason why we would have to remove this. > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsement...@virtuozzo.com> > --- > qapi/block-core.json | 4 +++- > block/backup-top.h | 1 + > include/block/block-copy.h | 2 +- > include/block/block_int.h | 1 + > block/backup-top.c | 4 +++- > block/backup.c | 4 +++- > block/block-copy.c | 4 ++-- > block/replication.c | 1 + > blockdev.c | 5 +++++ > 9 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/qapi/block-core.json b/qapi/block-core.json > index 6fbacddab2..0c7600e4ec 100644 > --- a/qapi/block-core.json > +++ b/qapi/block-core.json > @@ -1405,6 +1405,8 @@ > # above node specified by @drive. If this option is not > given, > # a node name is autogenerated. (Since: 4.2) > # > +# @x-use-copy-range: use copy offloading if possible. Default true. (Since > 5.1) Would it make more sense to invert it to disable-copy-range? First, this would make for a cleaner meaning, because it would allow dropping the “if possible” part. Setting use-copy-range=true would intuitively imply to me that I get an error if copy-range cannot be used. Sure, there’s this little “if possible” in the documentation, but it goes against my intuition. disable-copy-range=true is intuitively clear. Second, this would give us a default of false, which is marginally nicer. Max
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
