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=-10.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham 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 91200C47094 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 19:09:43 +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 F055561185 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 19:09:42 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org F055561185 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]:45284 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lqKd4-00038g-4f for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 15:09:42 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55732) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lqKbb-00013O-Tz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 15:08:11 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:26873) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lqKbZ-0003qm-Rz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 15:08:11 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1623092888; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=02F3S6c1rBua5tDLeQNLa6TZca6BAp/DfO06BCkqahM=; b=g7J9lr2GaVy0pWB5vo9II2oASzWyXLuoqN67XcAi3/ymm5BsQvt0NRO6OFrOqrHmBLc1L8 GjfolROq+vj5PoIlgIadqKGWALncHMrJxNtfTlRVUnvNqa4C7OsAkBohztyR+h8BmKed// Xzr2xe+UsEbRII5yngA3ouvKga5pxuU= Received: from mail-wr1-f69.google.com (mail-wr1-f69.google.com [209.85.221.69]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-532-IPrfpDxiM-e39jWxaHurpg-1; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 15:08:07 -0400 X-MC-Unique: IPrfpDxiM-e39jWxaHurpg-1 Received: by mail-wr1-f69.google.com with SMTP id z4-20020adfe5440000b0290114f89c9931so8213313wrm.17 for ; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 12:08:07 -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:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=02F3S6c1rBua5tDLeQNLa6TZca6BAp/DfO06BCkqahM=; b=ihfGo8C6GC6aNndo3XYVTVW9NkNuAPfZ+LshB+atrMT96HAJxFiz/aGfoLC2IRiWHt 7IR2Y5n5/4nDCYX5YwGiiLJFzCxmmOr9WQgESL74E2kC7QNfx6zwRwg7tAgHnYrOBmjm vBus9aXJ+2q+b0GuB8hQs5Wq7+U/n3U8UkYpSnLskjsXvewAVeyC8NtfNJBP2/J/soFW 6wsBWx4cDL3P9Di6ZlNprGT+oX7pjK6xhHX5zOh90zrR0hN2ulS94I40ddh2rxey9CAc RcOch9KX2Ijun5pwGGDEgFmPAUjjhZojIT674YJA5BdHBCmgjG+C15CPJ0ymBWodc5ku pJCg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5302HASVa1+36WaiTwuPp51mOx8QSP2rJWs+3LZZixfIr/yWI1m0 bhxMs59ThkYxDxh6DAxGCkI7zXbqJcPxKAD1sPbCVhRvFt/o2HaW1HO7LaqPi32G6k4PGLIBbmH /CK6EmaUgWrg/sL0= X-Received: by 2002:adf:ee4e:: with SMTP id w14mr14015617wro.14.1623092886285; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 12:08:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx4hNJVM2hB2RUoZJJrULPJf/y5I52cr1uemxYgSOeCVKYLgoAi6H9ixEwIqzLrkQRHHVeZ2Q== X-Received: by 2002:adf:ee4e:: with SMTP id w14mr14015609wro.14.1623092886086; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 12:08:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([2a04:ee41:4:31cb:e591:1e1e:abde:a8f1]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t9sm10501759wmq.14.2021.06.07.12.08.05 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 07 Jun 2021 12:08:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] block-copy: small fix and refactor To: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy , Kevin Wolf , Paolo Bonzini References: <20210528141628.44287-1-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> <151b2470-9c6c-cda9-a77b-64cdb10a7550@redhat.com> From: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 21:08:04 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=eesposit@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=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=eesposit@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -29 X-Spam_score: -3.0 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.0 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, 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: , Cc: mreitz@redhat.com, jsnow@redhat.com, qemu-block@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On 07/06/2021 18:18, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > 07.06.2021 18:16, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote: >> >> >> On 07/06/2021 17:10, Kevin Wolf wrote: >>> Am 03.06.2021 um 09:38 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben: >>>> On 02/06/21 14:21, Kevin Wolf wrote: >>>>> Am 02.06.2021 um 11:13 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben: >>>>>> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 05:16:26PM +0300, Vladimir >>>>>> Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: >>>>>>> Hi all! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is my suggestion how to refactor block-copy to avoid extra >>>>>>> atomic >>>>>>> operations in >>>>>>> "[PATCH v2 0/7] block-copy: protect block-copy internal structures" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy (2): >>>>>>>     block-copy: fix block_copy_task_entry() progress update >>>>>>>     block-copy: refactor copy_range handling >>>>>>> >>>>>>>    block/block-copy.c | 79 >>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- >>>>>>>    1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> I posted suggestions for the doc comment on Patch 2, otherwise: >>>>>> >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, fixed up the comment accordingly and applied to the block >>>>> branch. >>>> >>>> I'm a bit confused.  Vladimir said in his review of Emanuele's patches >>>> that he was okay with patch 7 and that he would rebase this >>>> refactoring on top of it. >>>> >>>> Vladimir's main complaint for the s->method state machine was the >>>> extra lines of code.  Here we have just as many new lines of code and >>>> new parameters that are passed by reference.  Kevin, can you please >>>> look at Emanuele's patches and possibly unqueue the second patch here? >>>> It seems to me that it should have been tagged as RFC. >>> >>> Sorry, I was not aware that Vladimir intended to rebase this one. This >>> has already landed in master, so if rebasing the other patch is a real >>> problem, we'd have to revert this one first. >>> >> It shouldn't be a problem, I have already rebased on top of it. I will >> re-spin a new series with this and other minor (and hopefully final) >> fixes soon. >> > > Thanks, and sorry for the mess! > > Hmm, actually, I said > >> OK, I'm OK with patch as is. Finally I can refactor it later on top if >> needed.. I'll try now do some refactoring, you'll probably want to >> base on it, or vise-versa, I'll rebase it later on top of these patches. > > So, I considered both variants. Then I sent patches, everybody in CC, > everybody were silent. > > > Honestly, I'm a bit confused too. I find my complains valid > (independently of me being "I'm OK and can refactor later") and you > agreed with them in general. I'm an author and maintainer of the > component. I do refactoring that makes it simple to follow my > suggestion. So for me it's a bit like doing your work for you. And you > ask to roll-back it. I think it's useless to discuss about these things now. I rebased, all is clear and I am positive that in the next version we will have something that makes everyone happy :) and if not, feel free to comment it! Emanuele > > Still, misunderstanding and the mess with two parallel conflicting > series is my fault, sorry for this. At least I should have answered to > your series when Stefan gave an r-b to my series. >