Re: [PATCH v2 for-5.0 0/7] block-copy improvements: part I

07.02.2020 21:05, Max Reitz wrote: On 20.01.20 10:09, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: ping Sorry, I only got to patch 5 so far (without major complaints). I’ll have to pack things up for the weekend now and I’ll be on PTO next week, so I won’t get to review the final two patches before

Re: [PATCH v2 for-5.0 0/7] block-copy improvements: part I

On 20.01.20 10:09, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > ping Sorry, I only got to patch 5 so far (without major complaints). I’ll have to pack things up for the weekend now and I’ll be on PTO next week, so I won’t get to review the final two patches before Feb 17, I’m afraid... Max

Re: [PATCH v2 for-5.0 0/7] block-copy improvements: part I

ping 19.12.2019 12:01, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > ping. Series applies on current master > > 27.11.2019 21:08, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: >> Hi all! >> >> This is a first part of my >>    [RFC 00/24] backup performance: block_status + async >> >> Patches are mostly separate

Re: [PATCH v2 for-5.0 0/7] block-copy improvements: part I

ping. Series applies on current master 27.11.2019 21:08, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > Hi all! > > This is a first part of my >[RFC 00/24] backup performance: block_status + async > > Patches are mostly separate by their idea, but sending them all in > separate is inefficient. > >

[PATCH v2 for-5.0 0/7] block-copy improvements: part I

Hi all! This is a first part of my [RFC 00/24] backup performance: block_status + async Patches are mostly separate by their idea, but sending them all in separate is inefficient. Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy (7): block/block-copy: specialcase first copy_range request block/block-copy: