From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=32826 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OZpSl-0002wZ-1M
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:16:44 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <hch@lst.de>) id 1OZpSj-00088Y-PA
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:16:42 -0400
Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.210]:38022)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <hch@lst.de>)
	id 1OZpSj-00087P-BC
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:16:41 -0400
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:16:33 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block: Change bdrv_commit to handle multiple
	sectors at once
Message-ID: <20100716181633.GA29674@lst.de>
References: <1279297056-13392-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1279297056-13392-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 06:17:36PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> +    buf = qemu_malloc(2048 * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE);

Please add a COMMIT_BUF_SIZE #define instead of the hardcoded 2048 in
various places.

>      for (i = 0; i < total_sectors;) {
> +        if (drv->bdrv_is_allocated(bs, i, 2048, &n)) {
>  
> +            if (bdrv_read(bs, i, buf, n) != 0) {
> +                ret = -EIO;
> +                goto ro_cleanup;
> +            }
> +
> +            if (bdrv_write(bs->backing_hd, i, buf, n) != 0) {
> +                ret = -EIO;
> +                goto ro_cleanup;
> +            }
>          }
> +        i += n;

Maybe it's just me, but I'd prefer n getting a more descriptive name
(e.g. sector) and moving the increment of it into the for loop, e.g.

	for (sector = 0; sector < total_sectors; sector += n) {
		if (!drv->bdrv_is_allocated(bs, i, 2048, &n))
			continue;
		...
	}

Otherwise this looks good to me.