From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49705)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <stefanha@gmail.com>) id 1VfomJ-0002CS-4p
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 05:31:39 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <stefanha@gmail.com>) id 1VfomA-0005p4-PR
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 05:31:31 -0500
Received: from mail-ea0-x234.google.com ([2a00:1450:4013:c01::234]:47348)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <stefanha@gmail.com>) id 1VfomA-0005ol-Ef
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 05:31:22 -0500
Received: by mail-ea0-f180.google.com with SMTP id b11so2655206eae.11
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 02:31:21 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 11:31:18 +0100
From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20131111103118.GI28264@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com>
References: <1383557410-18062-1-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com>
	<527778E9.6000907@redhat.com> <52777B3F.6010402@redhat.com>
	<52777D33.8010902@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <52777D33.8010902@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] block: per caller dirty 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: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com

On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 11:55:47AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 04/11/2013 11:47, Fam Zheng ha scritto:
> >>>
> >>> -void bdrv_set_dirty_tracking(BlockDriverState *bs, int granularity);
> >>> -int bdrv_get_dirty(BlockDriverState *bs, int64_t sector);
> >>> +typedef struct BdrvDirtyBitmap BdrvDirtyBitmap;
> >>> +BdrvDirtyBitmap *bdrv_create_dirty_bitmap(BlockDriverState *bs, int
> >>> granularity);
> >>> +void bdrv_release_dirty_bitmap(BlockDriverState *bs, BdrvDirtyBitmap
> >>> *bitmap);
> >>> +int bdrv_get_dirty(BlockDriverState *bs, BdrvDirtyBitmap *bitmap,
> >>> int64_t sector);
> >>>   void bdrv_set_dirty(BlockDriverState *bs, int64_t cur_sector, int
> >>> nr_sectors);
> >>>   void bdrv_reset_dirty(BlockDriverState *bs, int64_t cur_sector, int
> >>> nr_sectors);
> >>> -void bdrv_dirty_iter_init(BlockDriverState *bs, struct HBitmapIter
> >>> *hbi);
> >>> -int64_t bdrv_get_dirty_count(BlockDriverState *bs);
> >>> +void bdrv_dirty_iter_init(BlockDriverState *bs,
> >>> +                          BdrvDirtyBitmap *bitmap, struct
> >>> HBitmapIter *hbi);
> >>> +int64_t bdrv_get_dirty_count(BlockDriverState *bs, BdrvDirtyBitmap
> >>> *bitmap);
> >>>     void bdrv_enable_copy_on_read(BlockDriverState *bs);
> >>>   void bdrv_disable_copy_on_read(BlockDriverState *bs);
> >> You do not really need the BDS argument to the functions, do you?  (Or
> >> do you have other plans?)
> > 
> > I just wanted to keep the pattern of those bdrv_* family, no other plans
> > for it.
> 
> Kevin, Stefan, any second opinions?

I was thinking the same thing and arrived at the conclusion that since
it's bdrv_*() and not bbitmap_*() we should keep the explicit BDS
argument.

Stefan