From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39015)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <famz@redhat.com>) id 1b8f0S-0002ZZ-5e
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 22:38:41 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <famz@redhat.com>) id 1b8f0R-0006Z4-Au
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 22:38:40 -0400
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 10:38:29 +0800
From: Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20160603023829.GF29298@ad.usersys.redhat.com>
References: <1457412306-18940-1-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com>
	<1457412306-18940-9-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com>
	<56E2DD08.1080907@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <56E2DD08.1080907@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 08/15] tests: Add test code for meta
 bitmap
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/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: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>, jsnow@redhat.com, kwolf@redhat.com

On Fri, 03/11 15:58, Max Reitz wrote:
> > +    /* Test "unset" -> "set" will update meta */
> > +    hbitmap_set(data->hb, start, count);
> > +    hbitmap_check_meta(data, check_start, check_count);
> > +
> > +    /* Test "set" -> "set" will not update meta */
> > +    hbitmap_reset_all(data->meta);
> > +    hbitmap_set(data->hb, start, count);
> > +    hbitmap_check_meta(data, 0, 0);
> 
> Well, but if you'd do an hbitmap_set(data->hb, start, count + 1), then
> it would update meta, right?

Yes.

> 
> I forgot to mention in my reply to patch 7 that the check whether
> anything in the range passed to hbitmap_set() has been changed in order
> to determine whether all of that range should be set in the meta bitmap
> seemed a bit excessive. I don't think this will hurt anyone, but still.

It is. It has been on my list to optimize the unnecessary meta update away but
I haven't done that yet.

Fam

> 
> (So this is not a NACK, just a question.)
> 
> Max
>