Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 3/5] block/qcow2: refactor qcow2_co_preadv_part

[Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2153 bytes --]

Am 13.09.2019 um 13:06 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> On 13.09.19 12:53, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> > 13.09.2019 13:01, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >> Am 16.08.2019 um 17:30 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben:
> >>> Further patch will run partial requests of iterations of
> >>> qcow2_co_preadv in parallel for performance reasons. To prepare for
> >>> this, separate part which may be parallelized into separate function
> >>> (qcow2_co_preadv_task).
> >>>
> >>> While being here, also separate encrypted clusters reading to own
> >>> function, like it is done for compressed reading.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>   qapi/block-core.json |   2 +-
> >>>   block/qcow2.c        | 205 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> >>>   2 files changed, 111 insertions(+), 96 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/qapi/block-core.json b/qapi/block-core.json
> >>> index 0d43d4f37c..dd80aa11db 100644
> >>> --- a/qapi/block-core.json
> >>> +++ b/qapi/block-core.json
> >>> @@ -3266,7 +3266,7 @@
> >>>               'pwritev_rmw_tail', 'pwritev_rmw_after_tail', 'pwritev',
> >>>               'pwritev_zero', 'pwritev_done', 'empty_image_prepare',
> >>>               'l1_shrink_write_table', 'l1_shrink_free_l2_clusters',
> >>> -            'cor_write', 'cluster_alloc_space', 'none'] }
> >>> +            'cor_write', 'cluster_alloc_space', 'none', 'read_encrypted'] }
> >>
> >> What's the point of this new blkdebug event?
> >>
> >> Obviously, read_aio for an encrypted image must mean a read of encrypted
> >> data. The same image can never trigger both read_aio and
> >> read_encrypted, so why do we need to distinguish them as two different
> >> events?
> >>
> > 
> > Seems I just done it looking at qcow2_co_preadv_compressed..
> > 
> > Anyway, I think you are right, so, I don't mind if Max drops this new event
> > and use read_aio in his branch, or I can resend the series or send a follow-up,
> > whichever you prefer.
> 
> Should I squash this in?

Looks good to me.


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]