From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35489) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ePXDm-0001EX-3V for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 12:22:58 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ePXDl-00022H-8f for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 12:22:58 -0500 References: <20171214005953.8898-1-jsnow@redhat.com> <20171214005953.8898-5-jsnow@redhat.com> <0ac30feb-553b-cfa3-070a-0f703c4e0f10@redhat.com> <1b7494a6-aca5-41e8-469b-e2b9d8aade67@redhat.com> From: John Snow Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 12:22:47 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/7] blockjob: allow block_job_throttle to take delay_ns List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini , qemu-block@nongnu.org Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com, mreitz@redhat.com On 12/14/2017 12:21 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 14/12/2017 17:06, John Snow wrote: >>> >>> And another question. After this series there is exactly one >>> block_job_sleep_ns call (in block/mirror.c). Perhaps instead of >>> block_job_throttle, you should refine block_job_sleep_ns? >>> >> Yeah, maybe? "A rose by any other name," though -- I think I might be >> coming for the block/mirror call next because I have one more downstream >> BZ that references this as a job that can cause the warning print. >> >> So maybe we'll just have throttle calls instead of sleep calls from here >> on out. > > Ok, shall we wait for v2 where you look at that BZ as well? > > Thanks, > > Paolo > Sure -- if the only feedback you have on this series is primarily style and "maybe there are some more wins" I can spin a v2 to try to broaden the scope if it looks good so far. --js