From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81732C2B9F4 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 10:12:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C378613E7 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 10:12:54 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3C378613E7 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:47748 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ltp13-0003zm-Bs for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 06:12:53 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59700) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ltonk-00044r-M4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 05:59:08 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:55469) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ltonj-0000nX-2W for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 05:59:08 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1623923946; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=GerGRtSJPmwiBI54MdauEPRITLYiJulcCsQiJAabEGU=; b=BYJ4mnDB+JpIXaNReOu51OmBU7rjlHNChLpLuDTN3QaAGGelJAuXV7pdS9WycwbAmFYxID pJVUyAEm7GpsJzdDG4RBKdKWmIarHSqwpq4M/sOmFKuWuZKkuXwGfQsmA+j9713+7aEBGo MsO5LG7ZNXA6MYlZIb1kedwgtL8J0sw= Received: from mail-ej1-f69.google.com (mail-ej1-f69.google.com [209.85.218.69]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-591-VqDv86KFMluwmZXsGpSYsQ-1; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 05:59:05 -0400 X-MC-Unique: VqDv86KFMluwmZXsGpSYsQ-1 Received: by mail-ej1-f69.google.com with SMTP id mh17-20020a170906eb91b0290477da799023so1277168ejb.1 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 02:59:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=GerGRtSJPmwiBI54MdauEPRITLYiJulcCsQiJAabEGU=; b=RQupOf67j68b/WXDxD0eHv5PLmF+gYN2Qhe72I6mkXIl0nFRpRHLG+XzrbgbPf6qBm QofFb8vQNxV5RpaGNBI81B/Ws3iGWcain4gBpa25r5rVjbEIiTTbtVQA1A3SB73UKW0j 57J13DDZdlsm0LkSPsgGZDvxbJpjcCWJ7NTX2Osa0q8ssNPiFLaQTWK6bG3Ti40d1nGB Db9/uHTHmNS/pnxrIMcWnCVqQTzeDgLUrjwZRIA65L9maoXI3G84pZFLqhpngClCkfxE sTpSF7fLQMOWLs0efXuB+F6qB6+qmNTBIR0JoqvEnKmjr4qJZHA6PRy5m7BoW/URw7IC KfVA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531HtpChbP9WEJpyOrks9aMECl1ovKYBw6AVvTtW19bbgonBAZp0 y7eSzcO2iYyn+rA+HJkSshnBO5B0CLgrYzy+ECaYrVeLqN2gEbcsPEOS/5JmO6Ll35lvU17AsmP N8MkBOSzE46gMNETpcYrNNXBNmeHms/EnVWzMGu7GZj79WC3DSDD7ObXtsJaMX20qKi8= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:1009:: with SMTP id ox9mr4405231ejb.292.1623923943790; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 02:59:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz+1mS8jiEkBFNYN5Z7uEXSU6wpzduNarBLPr2iWXcMebLuf35AJfFeOkdeqUqXK0TtlhbOYw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:1009:: with SMTP id ox9mr4405214ejb.292.1623923943556; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 02:59:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:b07:6468:f312:c8dd:75d4:99ab:290a? ([2001:b07:6468:f312:c8dd:75d4:99ab:290a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a3sm3795900edu.61.2021.06.17.02.59.02 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 17 Jun 2021 02:59:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] block: add max_hw_transfer to BlockLimits To: Max Reitz , qemu-devel References: <20210603133722.218465-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20210603133722.218465-4-pbonzini@redhat.com> <664fb7dd-a6ca-9165-8ed7-24dac1c0ef81@redhat.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <041d365e-4586-8406-95af-4484b25e33f5@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 11:59:02 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <664fb7dd-a6ca-9165-8ed7-24dac1c0ef81@redhat.com> Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=pbonzini@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.205.24.124; envelope-from=pbonzini@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -31 X-Spam_score: -3.2 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.199, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.17, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On 16/06/21 15:46, Max Reitz wrote: > Given that the checkpatch complaint is only a warning, I think it’s OK > to keep the comment as it is here, and perhaps optionally fix all > comments in block_int.h in a follow-up. I don’t think we need to fix > existing comments, but, well, it wouldn’t be wrong. We don't need to, but sometimes the benefit (of not discussing checkpatch over and over) does seem to outweigh the churn. Thanks for the review! Paolo