On 04/13/2017 05:19 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > 13.04.2017 02:40, John Snow wrote: >> >> On 04/12/2017 07:36 PM, Eric Blake wrote: >>> On 04/12/2017 05:47 PM, John Snow wrote: >>>> >>>> On 04/12/2017 01:49 PM, Eric Blake wrote: >>>>> We had several functions that no one was using, and which used >>>>> sector-based interfaces. I'm trying to convert towards byte-based >>>>> interfaces, so it's easier to just drop the unused functions: >>>>> >>>>> bdrv_dirty_bitmap_size >>>>> bdrv_dirty_bitmap_get_meta >>>>> bdrv_dirty_bitmap_reset_meta >>>>> bdrv_dirty_bitmap_meta_granularity >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> include/block/dirty-bitmap.h | 8 -------- >>>>> block/dirty-bitmap.c | 34 ---------------------------------- >>>>> 2 files changed, 42 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>> I think it's likely Vladimir is or at least was relying on some of >>>> these >>>> for his migration and persistence series. >>>> >>>> Might be nice to let him chime in to see how much of a hassle this is. >>> Then let's add him in cc ;) >>> >> Err... I can't just summon people by mentioning them? >> >>> I'm okay if these functions stay because they have a user, but it would >>> also be nice if they were properly byte-based (like everything else in >>> dirty-bitmap at the end of my series). So even if we remove them here, >>> we can revert the removal, and re-add them but with a sane interface. >>> >> OK, but I will offer to do the work in the interest of not slowing >> things down any further. >> >> Do you use any of these, Vladimir? >> >> --js > HI all! > > only bdrv_dirty_bitmap_size() is used. No problem to add it back with my > series next update > >
Excellent, thanks! In that case: Reviewed-by: John Snow <js...@redhat.com> Should be for the whole series, IIRC. --js