From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NjU4Z-0006lh-8z
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 03:55:23 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=51107 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NjU4Y-0006lV-QE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 03:55:22 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim
	4.60) (envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1NjU4X-0007H8-SI
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 03:55:22 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44916)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1NjU4X-0007Gy-Db
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 03:55:21 -0500
Message-ID: <4B824645.3000505@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:54:29 +0100
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1266250769-5816-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com>	<4B7EFEFA.60501@codemonkey.ws>
	<m3sk8woew2.fsf@neno.neno>
In-Reply-To: <m3sk8woew2.fsf@neno.neno>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/3] qcow2: Rewrite alloc_refcount_block
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>
To: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
Cc: armbru@redhat.com, gleb@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, hch@lst.de

Am 20.02.2010 02:49, schrieb Juan Quintela:
> Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
>> On 02/15/2010 10:19 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> The current implementation of alloc_refcount_block and grow_refcount_table has
>>> fundamental problems regarding error handling. There are some places where an
>>> I/O error means that the image is going to be corrupted. I have found that the
>>> only way to fix this is to completely rewrite the thing.
>>>
>>> Just sending as an RFC to the list hasn't generated a lot of comments (to be
>>> precise, not a single one). This is a critical part of qcow2 and needs reviews.
>>> So let's try it another way: People in CC, please give it a review. Sooner or
>>> later some of you will need to do so anyway.
>>>    
>>
>> Should I apply this series?  I still don't see any review comments.
> 
> I sent review comments on the 18th.  I expect Kevin to address them.  I
> talked with him on irc while doing the review (i.e. he knows about
> them).

I was hoping for more comments as there were three more people in the CC
list. But looks like they prefer reviewing the patches downstream. I'm
going to send a v2 which addresses only your comments if I don't get any
more comments soon.

Kevin