Am 10.10.2017 um 21:24 hat John Snow geschrieben: > > > On 10/10/2017 03:00 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > > On 10/10/2017 09:43 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > > > >>>> --- > >>>> v5: use second label for cleaner exit logic [John], use local_pnum > >> > >>>> @@ -1811,16 +1811,19 @@ static int64_t coroutine_fn > >>>> bdrv_co_get_block_status(BlockDriverState *bs, > >>>> int64_t total_sectors; > >>>> int64_t n; > >>>> int64_t ret, ret2; > >>>> + BlockDriverState *local_file = NULL; > >>>> + int local_pnum = 0; > >>> > >>> I don't quite see what the point of local_pnum is if we assert anyway > >>> that the real pnum is non-NULL. > >> > >> I did it in parallel with fallout from John's review on v4: > >> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-09/msg06958.html > >> > >> but since it wasn't specifically asked for, and is now getting > >> questions, I'm fine with not having it in v6. > > > > Okay, I re-read v4, and here's the comment (on 21/23) that led to my > > experiment in v5 patch 1 with local_pnum: > > > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-10/msg00293.html > > > > and I did argue: > > > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-10/msg00311.html > > Well, Kevin's the boss :D
I'm not sure how renaming *pnum into local_pnum addresses your concerns? We still update local_pnum before we undo our alignment corrections. Or are you talking about some other part of these mails? Kevin