From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60762) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ws7V9-0001oW-Tm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 05:29:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ws7Uz-0004Rf-54 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 05:28:55 -0400 Received: from mail-we0-x230.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c03::230]:64906) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ws7Uy-0004RP-SP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 05:28:45 -0400 Received: by mail-we0-f176.google.com with SMTP id q59so8233462wes.35 for ; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 02:28:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 11:28:41 +0200 From: Stefan Hajnoczi Message-ID: <20140604092841.GD26902@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> References: <1401799978-9558-1-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com> <1401799978-9558-6-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com> <538DCF99.9030602@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <538DCF99.9030602@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 5/5] virtio-blk: Drop VirtIOBlockReq.read List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Kevin Wolf , Fam Zheng , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 03:37:29PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > QEMUIOVector *inhdr; /* iovecs for virtio_blk_inhdr */ > > This can be unified with the "in" field; the status is only one byte, so > using a full-blown QEMUIOVector is overkill. Stefan, what do you think? I thought about this when initially writing the code, but it seemed like a hack to assume virtio_blk_inhdr will always be 1 byte. virtio-blk is unlikely to change much since the focus is on virtio-scsi rather than piling on more virtio-blk feature. I still prefer we treat it like a struct without making size assumptions, but if the code turns out to be nicer then I don't mind. Stefan