From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MKVyM-0002n0-EK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 07:21:30 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MKVyF-0002lD-TS
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 07:21:27 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58060 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MKVyD-0002l2-VR
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 07:21:22 -0400
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]:51555)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <weil@mail.berlios.de>) id 1MKVyD-0005Xh-7v
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 07:21:21 -0400
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] ident=stefan)
	by flocke.weilnetz.de with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <weil@mail.berlios.de>) id 1MKVy9-0002lz-Lc
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:21:17 +0200
Message-ID: <4A4600AD.2000903@mail.berlios.de>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:21:17 +0200
From: Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qcow2: Cache refcount blocks during snapshot
	creation
References: <1246040378-4134-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com>	<20090626184806.GE1119@codesourcery.com>
	<4A45DFF5.6080909@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A45DFF5.6080909@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Kevin Wolf schrieb:
> Nathan Froyd schrieb:
>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 08:19:38PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> + if (s->refcount_block_cache_offset == 0) {
>>> + return 0;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (bdrv_pwrite(s->hd, s->refcount_block_cache_offset,
>>> + s->refcount_block_cache, size) != size)
>>> + {
>> Nit: bad formatting for opening brace here.
>
> Oh, I like nitpicking. The coding style says: "The opening brace is on
> the line that contains the control flow statement that introduces the
> new block". No way to conform here without breaking the 80 characters
> limit, so I did what I think is most reasonable. ;-)
>
> I guess you mean something like the following:
>
> if (bdrv_pwrite(s->hd, s->refcount_block_cache_offset,
> s->refcount_block_cache, size) != size) {
> do_it();
> }
>
> I don't like this very much because you can't see from the indentation
> where the condition ends and the "then" branch begins (which is
> different from a single-line condition). Maybe something to clarify in
> the coding style and I'll happily follow it then.
>
> Kevin
>
>
>

Or like this?

    if (bdrv_pwrite(s->hd, s->refcount_block_cache_offset,
                    s->refcount_block_cache, size) != size) {
        do_it();
    }


Stefan :-)