On 10/28/26 15:20, Eric Blake wrote: > On Mon, Oct 05, 2026 at 05:04:22PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 05, 2026 at 10:59:11AM +0200, Denis V. Lunev wrote: >>> On 9/29/26 17:51, Denis V. Lunev wrote: >>>> This email originated from an IP that might not be authorized by the >>>> domain it was sent from. >>>> Do not click links or open attachments unless it is an email you expected >>>> to receive. >>>> Backup and commit re-query the source block status for every task and >>>> size a task by the copy buffer, so a long run of zeroes turns into a >>>> crowd of small write-zeroes requests. This series reuses what the >>>> up-front scan already learned and lets one write-zeroes task cover a >>>> whole run. >>>> >>>> Backup of a 16G qcow2 image holding 1G of data, the rest never >>>> allocated, sync=full to a raw target on ext4: >>>> >>>> tasks time >>>> before 16384 1.6s >>>> after 1088 1.0s >>>> >>>> Such an image is the normal case rather than a corner one: a guest with >>>> discard enabled on a disk which is mostly free leaves exactly this >>>> shape behind. >>> ping >> It looks like this series is fully reviewed; I also took a look at it >> and didn't spot anything to add. I plan on queueing into a pull >> request shortly. > After I posted this, Vladimir mentioned some possible changes. Should > I do a pull request with this series as-is, or should I wait for a v4 > and/or followup patches? > I'd go with v4. Hope tomorrow.
Sorry for delay - we are trying to kick out new release :( Den
