On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 8:29 AM Peter Lieven <p...@kamp.de> wrote: > > Am 15.02.21 um 13:13 schrieb Kevin Wolf: > > Am 15.02.2021 um 12:45 hat Peter Lieven geschrieben: > >> Am 15.02.21 um 12:41 schrieb Daniel P. Berrangé: > >>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 12:32:24PM +0100, Peter Lieven wrote: > >>>> Am 15.02.21 um 11:24 schrieb Daniel P. Berrangé: > >>>>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:25:34PM +0100, Peter Lieven wrote: > >>>>>> even luminous (version 12.2) is unmaintained for over 3 years now. > >>>>>> Bump the requirement to get rid of the ifdef'ry in the code. > >>>>> We have clear rules on when we bump minimum versions, determined by > >>>>> the OS platforms we target: > >>>>> > >>>>> https://qemu.readthedocs.io/en/latest/system/build-platforms.html > >>>>> > >>>>> At this time RHEL-7 is usually the oldest platform, and it > >>>>> builds with RBD 10.2.5, so we can't bump the version to 12.2. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm afraid this patch has to be dropped. > >>>> I have asked exactly this question before I started work on this series > >>>> and got reply > >>>> > >>>> from Jason that he sees no problem in bumping to a release which is > >>>> already unmaintained > >>>> > >>>> for 3 years. > >>> I'm afraid Jason is wrong here. It doesn't matter what the upstream > >>> consider the support status to be. QEMU targets what the OS vendors > >>> ship, and they still consider this to be a supported version. > >> > >> Okay, but the whole coroutine stuff would get a total mess with all > >> the ifdef'ry. > > Hm, but how are these ifdefs even related to the coroutine conversation? > > It's a bit more code that you're moving around, but shouldn't it be > > unchanged from the old code, just moving from an AIO callback to a > > coroutine? Or am I missing some complications? > > > No, the ifdef's only come back in for the write zeroes part. > > > > > >> Would it be an option to make a big ifdef in the rbd driver? One with > >> old code for < 12.0.0 and one > >> > >> with new code for >= 12.0.0? > > I don't think this is a good idea, this would be a huge mess to > > maintain. > > > > The conversion is probably a good idea in general, simply because it's > > more in line with the rest of the block layer, but I don't think it adds > > anything per se, so it's hard to justify such duplication with the > > benefits it brings. > > > I would wait for Jasons comment on the rbd part of the series and then spin a > V3 > > with a for-6.1 tag.
Sorry for the long delay -- I was delayed from being out-of-town. I've reviewed and play-tested the patches and it looks good for me. I'll wait for V3 before adding my official review. > > > Peter > -- Jason