From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KBQrA-0007ik-Qx
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:00:00 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KBQr8-0007iQ-Tv
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:00:00 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=47134 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KBQr8-0007iN-N2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 04:59:58 -0400
Received: from ecfrec.frec.bull.fr ([129.183.4.8]:47327)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <Laurent.Vivier@bull.net>) id 1KBQr8-0007wH-LE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 04:59:58 -0400
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qcow2: improve I/O performance with	cache=off
From: Laurent Vivier <Laurent.Vivier@bull.net>
In-Reply-To: <48620515.4070306@suse.de>
References: <1213972680.3859.34.camel@frecb07144>  <4861156B.30707@suse.de>
	<1214325634.3846.6.camel@frecb07144>  <48620515.4070306@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:59:51 +0200
Message-Id: <1214384391.5798.1.camel@frecb07144>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
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.gnu.org/pipermail/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@suse.de>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Le mercredi 25 juin 2008 =C3=A0 10:43 +0200, Kevin Wolf a =C3=A9crit :
> Hi Laurent,
>=20
> Laurent Vivier schrieb:
> > I modify this patch according Avi comments, and I'll repost it.
> >=20
> > Thank you for your comments.
>=20
> It's certainly a good idea to add the change suggested by Avi. But don'=
t=20
> you think you'd better make a second patch out of it, on top of this=20
> one? I feel that the patch to get_cluster_offset might not be too small=
=20
> for itself.

Yes, you're right. So I'll resend this patch in a serie.

> Oh, and while you're at it... ;-) I think this function could use at=20
> least some more comments, and splitting out some parts as new functions=
=20
> could also help with its readability.

I'll think about that. But adding more functions can also be bad for the
readability.

Thank you,
Laurent
--=20
------------- Laurent.Vivier@bull.net ---------------
"The best way to predict the future is to invent it."
- Alan Kay