From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93A2EC04AB6 for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 15:50:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 683AB2687B for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 15:50:57 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 683AB2687B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45461 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hWjo0-0007Ht-O1 for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 31 May 2019 11:50:56 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:60662) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hWjmm-0006cV-0z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 31 May 2019 11:49:40 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hWjml-0004Zz-0L for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 31 May 2019 11:49:39 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44392) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hWjmi-0004W1-IV; Fri, 31 May 2019 11:49:36 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D826E3087945; Fri, 31 May 2019 15:49:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-117-126.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.117.126]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EB6B5C57D; Fri, 31 May 2019 15:49:32 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 17:49:30 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf To: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy Message-ID: <20190531154930.GF9842@localhost.localdomain> References: <20190528084544.183558-1-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> <20190528084544.183558-3-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> <20190531105101.GB29868@stefanha-x1.localdomain> <6cddd33f-9d09-cff0-b8dd-c2c0e8696e69@virtuozzo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6cddd33f-9d09-cff0-b8dd-c2c0e8696e69@virtuozzo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.45]); Fri, 31 May 2019 15:49:35 +0000 (UTC) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] block/io: refactor padding X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "fam@euphon.net" , "qemu-block@nongnu.org" , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , Stefan Hajnoczi , "mreitz@redhat.com" Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Am 31.05.2019 um 16:10 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben: > 31.05.2019 13:51, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:45:44AM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > >> We have similar padding code in bdrv_co_pwritev, > >> bdrv_co_do_pwrite_zeroes and bdrv_co_preadv. Let's combine and unify > >> it. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy > >> --- > >> block/io.c | 344 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------- > > > > Hmmm...this adds more lines than it removes. O_o > > It's near to be the same size, and keep in mind big comment. If you take the whole series into account, it looks even less favourable, despite some comments: 3 files changed, 273 insertions(+), 165 deletions(-) > > > > Merging a change like this can still be useful but there's a risk of > > making the code harder to understand due to the additional layers of > > abstraction. > > It's a preparation for adding qiov_offset parameter to read/write path. Seems > correct to unify similar things, which I'm going to change. And I really want > to make code more understandable than it was.. But my view is not general > of course. Depending on the changes you're going to make (e.g. adding more users of the same functionality, or making the duplicated code much larger), this can be a good justification even if the code size increases. I'd suggest to add the explanation (like 'This is in preparation for ...') to the commit message then. Kevin