Re: [PULL 0/8] 9p queue 2021-10-27

[Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>]

On 10/27/21 10:29 AM, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 27. Oktober 2021 18:48:10 CEST Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Philippe, of course I understand why this looks odd to you, and yes you
> reviewed that particular patch. But the situation on the 9p front is like this
> for >2 years now: people quickly come by to nack patches, but even after
> having addressed their concerns they barely add their RBs afterwards. That
> means I am currently forced to send out PRs without RBs once in a while.

In know the feeling -- it takes quite some prodding to get tcg patches reviewed, and I 
have also sent out PRs that are incompletely reviewed.

I see that patch 5 was something I suggested myself, which I then failed to review 
afterward.  In recompense, I have reviewed the whole patch set:

Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>

I think the P9Array is fairly clever, and I do prefer it over glib ugliness.  I can 
imagine only C++ being an improvement over what you've created.

Rather than force you to re-create the PR, I'll simply apply this along with the S-o-b, to 
the merge object.


r~