Re: [PULL 0/8] 9p queue 2021-10-27

[Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_oss@crudebyte.com>]

On Mittwoch, 27. Oktober 2021 20:44:52 CEST Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/27/21 10:29 AM, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> > On Mittwoch, 27. Oktober 2021 18:48:10 CEST Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> >> On 10/27/21 18:21, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> >>> On Mittwoch, 27. Oktober 2021 17:36:03 CEST Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 
wrote:
> >>>> Hi Christian,
> >>>> 
> >>>> On 10/27/21 16:05, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> >>>>> On Mittwoch, 27. Oktober 2021 15:18:33 CEST Christian Schoenebeck 
wrote:
> >>>>>> The following changes since commit
> >>> 
> >>> 931ce30859176f0f7daac6bac255dae5eb21284e:
> >>>>>>    Merge remote-tracking branch
> >>>>>>    'remotes/dagrh/tags/pull-virtiofs-20211026'
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> into staging (2021-10-26 07:38:41 -0700)
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> are available in the Git repository at:
> >>>>>>    https://github.com/cschoenebeck/qemu.git tags/pull-9p-20211027
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> for you to fetch changes up to
> > 
> > 7e985780aaab93d2c5be9b62d8d386568dfb071e:
> >>>>>>    9pfs: use P9Array in v9fs_walk() (2021-10-27 14:45:22 +0200)
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> 9pfs: performance fix and cleanup
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> * First patch fixes suboptimal I/O performance on guest due to
> >>>>>> previously
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>    incorrect block size being transmitted to 9p client.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> * Subsequent patches are cleanup ones intended to reduce code
> >>>>>> complexity.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Christian Schoenebeck (8):
> >>>>>>        9pfs: fix wrong I/O block size in Rgetattr
> >>>>>>        9pfs: deduplicate iounit code
> >>>>>>        9pfs: simplify blksize_to_iounit()
> >>>>>>        9pfs: introduce P9Array
> >>>>>>        fsdev/p9array.h: check scalar type in P9ARRAY_NEW()
> >>>>>>        9pfs: make V9fsString usable via P9Array API
> >>>>>>        9pfs: make V9fsPath usable via P9Array API
> >>>>>>        9pfs: use P9Array in v9fs_walk()
> >>>>>>   
> >>>>>>   fsdev/9p-marshal.c |   2 +
> >>>>>>   fsdev/9p-marshal.h |   3 +
> >>>>>>   fsdev/file-op-9p.h |   2 +
> >>>>>>   fsdev/p9array.h    | 160
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ hw/9pfs/9p.c
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 70 +++++++++++++----------
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>   5 files changed, 208 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>   create mode 100644 fsdev/p9array.h
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Regarding last 5 patches: Daniel raised a concern that not using
> >>>>> g_autoptr
> >>>>> would deviate from current QEMU coding patterns:
> >>>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2021-10/msg00081.html
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Unfortunately I saw no way to address his concern without adding
> >>>>> unnecessary code complexity, so I decided to make this a 9p local type
> >>>>> (QArray -> P9Array) for now, which can easily be replaced in future
> >>>>> (e.g.
> >>>>> when there will be something appropriate on glib side).
> >>>> 
> >>>> Hmm various patches aren't reviewed yet... In particular
> >>>> patch #5 has a Suggested-by tag without Reviewed-by, this
> >>>> looks odd.
> >>>> 
> >>>> See https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPullRequest:
> >>>>    Don't send pull requests for code that hasn't passed review.
> >>>>    A pull request says these patches are ready to go into QEMU now,
> >>>>    so they must have passed the standard code review processes. In
> >>>>    particular if you've corrected issues in one round of code review,
> >>>>    you need to send your fixed patch series as normal to the list;
> >>>>    you can't put it in a pull request until it's gone through.
> >>>>    (Extremely trivial fixes may be OK to just fix in passing, but
> >>>>    if in doubt err on the side of not.)
> >>> 
> >>> There are in general exactly two persons adding their RBs to 9p patches,
> >>> which is either Greg or me, and Greg made it already clear that he
> >>> barely
> >>> has time for anything above trivial set.
> >>> 
> >>> So what do you suggest? You want to participate and review 9p patches?
> >> 
> >> Well I am a bit surprised...
> >> 
> >> $ git log --oneline \
> >> 
> >>      --grep='Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé' -- hw/9pfs/ | wc -l
> >> 
> >> 18
> >> 
> >> I also reviewed patch #3 if this pull request...
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Now I see you posted this 4 times in 2 months, so indeed eventual
> >> reviewers had plenty of time to look at your patches.
> >> 
> >> Note I haven't said I'd NAck your pull request, I noticed your own
> >> concern wrt Daniel comment, so I looked at the patch and realized
> >> it was not reviewed, and simply said this is this is odd.
> >> 
> >> Regards,
> >> 
> >> Phil.
> > 
> > Philippe, of course I understand why this looks odd to you, and yes you
> > reviewed that particular patch. But the situation on the 9p front is like
> > this for >2 years now: people quickly come by to nack patches, but even
> > after having addressed their concerns they barely add their RBs
> > afterwards. That means I am currently forced to send out PRs without RBs
> > once in a while.
> In know the feeling -- it takes quite some prodding to get tcg patches
> reviewed, and I have also sent out PRs that are incompletely reviewed.
> 
> I see that patch 5 was something I suggested myself, which I then failed to
> review afterward.  In recompense, I have reviewed the whole patch set:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
> 
> I think the P9Array is fairly clever, and I do prefer it over glib ugliness.
>  I can imagine only C++ being an improvement over what you've created.
> 
> Rather than force you to re-create the PR, I'll simply apply this along with
> the S-o-b, to the merge object.
> 
> 
> r~

Thanks Richard, I highly appreciate that!

Best regards,
Christian Schoenebeck