On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 09:54:34AM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: >On 03/14/2017 05:27 AM, Chao Fan wrote: >> In hmp, dirty-bytes-rate is more friendly than dirty-pages-rate. >> It's also better for other tools to determine the cpu throttle >> value in different architecture. >> >> Signed-off-by: Chao Fan <fanc.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> >> Signed-off-by: Li Zhijian <lizhij...@cn.fujitsu.com> >> --- > >In addition to the (good) comments you've gotten on not breaking >existing fields, and the choice between a single new field giving the >page size (with all fields favoring pages) or lots of new fields giving >bytes, I have another comment: > >> @@ -575,12 +572,15 @@ >> # @postcopy-requests: The number of page requests received from the >> destination >> # (since 2.7) >> # >> +# @dirty-bytes-rate: how many bytes dirtied by second by the >> +# guest (since 2.9) > >You've missed soft freeze. Is this really bug-fix quality to be adding >it into the release this late in the game for 2.9, or should it be >deferred to 2.10?
Ok, I will change it. Many thanks for your help. Thanks, Chao Fan > >And while this is just a new field to an existing command, rather than a >new command entirely, it's also worth thinking about Markus' edict for >testsuite coverage: >https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-03/msg00296.html > >-- >Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 >Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org >
