From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44680) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ab3Vy-0008AZ-Oj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 04:56:19 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ab3Vu-0000MX-La for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 04:56:18 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51343) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ab3Vu-0000MQ-Fs for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 04:56:14 -0500 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1429A627C0 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 09:56:14 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:26:07 +0530 From: Amit Shah Message-ID: <20160302095607.GB15443@grmbl.mre> References: <1455119605-31261-1-git-send-email-lprosek@redhat.com> <1455119605-31261-5-git-send-email-lprosek@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1455119605-31261-5-git-send-email-lprosek@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 4/4] rng: add request queue support to rng-random List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Ladi Prosek Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pagupta@redhat.com On (Wed) 10 Feb 2016 [16:53:25], Ladi Prosek wrote: > Requests are now created in the RngBackend parent class and the > code path is shared by both rng-egd and rng-random. > > This commit fixes the rng-random implementation which currently > processes only one request at a time and simply discards all > but the most recent one. In the guest this manifests as delayed > completion of reads from virtio-rng, i.e. a read is completed > only after another read is issued. Nice commit message, but one convention I like is: when you're fixing something, refer to the bug in past tense, so it's not confusing with existing behaviour (i.e. since you're already fixing that bug in this patch, it's better to write in the past tense about this bug). Also, since you mentioned the move from stack-based allocation to heap-based in the cover letter, and since this patch actually does that, please include a one-liner here for it too. Otherwise, the series is fine. Amit