On 10/27/21 18:21, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 27. Oktober 2021 17:36:03 CEST Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> Hi Christian,
>>
>> On 10/27/21 16:05, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
>>> On Mittwoch, 27. Oktober 2021 15:18:33 CEST Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
>>>> The following changes since commit
> 931ce30859176f0f7daac6bac255dae5eb21284e:
>>>> Merge remote-tracking branch
>>>> 'remotes/dagrh/tags/pull-virtiofs-20211026'
>>>>
>>>> into staging (2021-10-26 07:38:41 -0700)
>>>>
>>>> are available in the Git repository at:
>>>> https://github.com/cschoenebeck/qemu.git tags/pull-9p-20211027
>>>>
>>>> for you to fetch changes up to 7e985780aaab93d2c5be9b62d8d386568dfb071e:
>>>> 9pfs: use P9Array in v9fs_walk() (2021-10-27 14:45:22 +0200)
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 9pfs: performance fix and cleanup
>>>>
>>>> * First patch fixes suboptimal I/O performance on guest due to previously
>>>>
>>>> incorrect block size being transmitted to 9p client.
>>>>
>>>> * Subsequent patches are cleanup ones intended to reduce code complexity.
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Christian Schoenebeck (8):
>>>> 9pfs: fix wrong I/O block size in Rgetattr
>>>> 9pfs: deduplicate iounit code
>>>> 9pfs: simplify blksize_to_iounit()
>>>> 9pfs: introduce P9Array
>>>> fsdev/p9array.h: check scalar type in P9ARRAY_NEW()
>>>> 9pfs: make V9fsString usable via P9Array API
>>>> 9pfs: make V9fsPath usable via P9Array API
>>>> 9pfs: use P9Array in v9fs_walk()
>>>>
>>>> fsdev/9p-marshal.c | 2 +
>>>> fsdev/9p-marshal.h | 3 +
>>>> fsdev/file-op-9p.h | 2 +
>>>> fsdev/p9array.h | 160
>>>>
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ hw/9pfs/9p.c
>>>> |
>>>> 70 +++++++++++++----------
>>>>
>>>> 5 files changed, 208 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>>>> create mode 100644 fsdev/p9array.h
>>>
>>> Regarding last 5 patches: Daniel raised a concern that not using g_autoptr
>>> would deviate from current QEMU coding patterns:
>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2021-10/msg00081.html
>>>
>>> Unfortunately I saw no way to address his concern without adding
>>> unnecessary code complexity, so I decided to make this a 9p local type
>>> (QArray -> P9Array) for now, which can easily be replaced in future (e.g.
>>> when there will be something appropriate on glib side).
>>
>> Hmm various patches aren't reviewed yet... In particular
>> patch #5 has a Suggested-by tag without Reviewed-by, this
>> looks odd.
>>
>> See https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPullRequest:
>>
>> Don't send pull requests for code that hasn't passed review.
>> A pull request says these patches are ready to go into QEMU now,
>> so they must have passed the standard code review processes. In
>> particular if you've corrected issues in one round of code review,
>> you need to send your fixed patch series as normal to the list;
>> you can't put it in a pull request until it's gone through.
>> (Extremely trivial fixes may be OK to just fix in passing, but
>> if in doubt err on the side of not.)
>
> There are in general exactly two persons adding their RBs to 9p patches,
> which
> is either Greg or me, and Greg made it already clear that he barely has time
> for anything above trivial set.
>
> So what do you suggest? You want to participate and review 9p patches?
Well I am a bit surprised...
$ git log --oneline \
--grep='Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé' -- hw/9pfs/ | wc -l
18
I also reviewed patch #3 if this pull request...
Now I see you posted this 4 times in 2 months, so indeed eventual
reviewers had plenty of time to look at your patches.
Note I haven't said I'd NAck your pull request, I noticed your own
concern wrt Daniel comment, so I looked at the patch and realized
it was not reviewed, and simply said this is this is odd.
Regards,
Phil.
