On 07/06/2021 18:18, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
07.06.2021 18:16, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
On 07/06/2021 17:10, Kevin Wolf wrote:
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.
It shouldn't be a problem, I have already rebased on top of it. I will
re-spin a new series with this and other minor (and hopefully final)
fixes soon.
Thanks, and sorry for the mess!
Hmm, actually, I said
OK, I'm OK with patch as is. Finally I can refactor it later on top if
needed.. I'll try now do some refactoring, you'll probably want to
base on it, or vise-versa, I'll rebase it later on top of these patches.
So, I considered both variants. Then I sent patches, everybody in CC,
everybody were silent.
Honestly, I'm a bit confused too. I find my complains valid
(independently of me being "I'm OK and can refactor later") and you
agreed with them in general. I'm an author and maintainer of the
component. I do refactoring that makes it simple to follow my
suggestion. So for me it's a bit like doing your work for you. And you
ask to roll-back it.
I think it's useless to discuss about these things now. I rebased, all
is clear and I am positive that in the next version we will have
something that makes everyone happy :) and if not, feel free to comment it!
Emanuele
Still, misunderstanding and the mess with two parallel conflicting
series is my fault, sorry for this. At least I should have answered to
your series when Stefan gave an r-b to my series.