On 04.05.2017 05:07, Eric Blake wrote: > I've collected several improvements for qcow2 zero-cluster handling. > > Available as a tag at: > git fetch git://repo.or.cz/qemu/ericb.git nbd-blkdebug-v12 > > Marked as v12 for "hysterical raisins", since it it the half of > v10 [1] that was not resubmitted as v11 [2]. > > Depends on Max's block tree: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-05/msg00641.html > and on Max's qcow2 cleanups: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-05/msg00689.html > > [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-04/msg05227.html > [2] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-04/msg05896.html > > Changes since last posting: > - lots of tweaks to resolve Max's review findings, including > rewriting my additions to test 154 > - a new patch splitting QCOW2_CLUSTER_ZERO that fell out from > my review of Max's work > - defer any optimizations of a backing file with different length > until later (I will still post an RFC patch to explore what > optimizations a BDRV_BLOCK_EOF would allow, but didn't want to > hold up this series any further)
I have given an R-b for every patch, so I could apply the series as-is (with the really minor fixes we have talked about, and the thing in patch 8), and I would be more or less OK with that. But I did have my fair share of nit picks and before I discard all of them, I'd like to know for sure that you don't intend to address them, or address them in a follow-up. I'm saying this because some of the issues I had do not really lend themselves nicely to a follow-up; for instance the s/Data cluster/Cluster allocation/ for patch 4. From my perspective, it's not much more difficult to review a respin of this series which just these minor points changed and maybe some very small patches (the follow-up, basically) added to it. Max
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
