On 04.05.2017 05:07, Eric Blake wrote:
> I've collected several improvements for qcow2 zero-cluster handling.
> 
> Available as a tag at:
> git fetch git://repo.or.cz/qemu/ericb.git nbd-blkdebug-v12
> 
> Marked as v12 for "hysterical raisins", since it it the half of
> v10 [1] that was not resubmitted as v11 [2].
> 
> Depends on Max's block tree:
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-05/msg00641.html
> and on Max's qcow2 cleanups:
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-05/msg00689.html
> 
> [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-04/msg05227.html
> [2] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-04/msg05896.html
> 
> Changes since last posting:
> - lots of tweaks to resolve Max's review findings, including
> rewriting my additions to test 154
> - a new patch splitting QCOW2_CLUSTER_ZERO that fell out from
> my review of Max's work
> - defer any optimizations of a backing file with different length
> until later (I will still post an RFC patch to explore what
> optimizations a BDRV_BLOCK_EOF would allow, but didn't want to
> hold up this series any further)

I have given an R-b for every patch, so I could apply the series as-is
(with the really minor fixes we have talked about, and the thing in
patch 8), and I would be more or less OK with that. But I did have my
fair share of nit picks and before I discard all of them, I'd like to
know for sure that you don't intend to address them, or address them in
a follow-up.

I'm saying this because some of the issues I had do not really lend
themselves nicely to a follow-up; for instance the
s/Data cluster/Cluster allocation/ for patch 4.

From my perspective, it's not much more difficult to review a respin of
this series which just these minor points changed and maybe some very
small patches (the follow-up, basically) added to it.

Max