From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34307) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e2Cb4-0001BB-2K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 04:42:34 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e2Cb3-0003iB-3y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 04:42:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:42:14 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20171011084214.GB4593@dhcp-200-186.str.redhat.com> References: <20171004020048.26379-1-eblake@redhat.com> <20171004020048.26379-2-eblake@redhat.com> <20171010135940.GJ4177@dhcp-200-186.str.redhat.com> <67e98ca7-e861-a646-b701-b8f7453f2951@redhat.com> <46e7ca23-fb38-7620-90fb-04982e5b9ad0@redhat.com> <06af49fb-6e94-d8c0-3701-7579e55c92a5@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <06af49fb-6e94-d8c0-3701-7579e55c92a5@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 01/23] block: Allow NULL file for bdrv_get_block_status() List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: John Snow Cc: Eric Blake , famz@redhat.com, qemu-block@nongnu.org, Jeff Cody , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Max Reitz , Stefan Hajnoczi 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