From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1O3s1T-0000PP-Q2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:32:27 -0400
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=48021 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O3s1R-0000OW-Gx
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:32:27 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1O3s1H-0007Yb-Ih
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:32:25 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54238)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1O3s1H-0007YE-As
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:32:15 -0400
Message-ID: <4BCC694E.2080307@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:31:42 +0200
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 2/2] block: Cache total_sectors to reduce
	bdrv_getlength calls
References: <1271680452-24121-1-git-send-email-stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com>	
	<1271680452-24121-2-git-send-email-stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com>	
	<4BCC6453.2020605@redhat.com>
	<j2mfbd9d3991004190726z2e1126c4w5505a1691f16eba0@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <j2mfbd9d3991004190726z2e1126c4w5505a1691f16eba0@mail.gmail.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>
To: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>
Cc: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Am 19.04.2010 16:26, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> @@ -416,9 +417,7 @@ static int bdrv_open_common(BlockDriverState *bs, const char *filename,
>>>      }
>>>
>>>      bs->keep_read_only = bs->read_only = !(open_flags & BDRV_O_RDWR);
>>> -    if (drv->bdrv_getlength) {
>>> -        bs->total_sectors = bdrv_getlength(bs) >> BDRV_SECTOR_BITS;
>>> -    }
>>> +    bs->total_sectors = bdrv_getlength(bs) >> BDRV_SECTOR_BITS;
>>
>> Does this hunk make a difference? If drv->bdrv_getlength == NULL, we'll
>> just get back the current value.
> 
> The if statement could be left as is.  I removed it to reduce the
> number of places where if (drv->bdrv_getlength) is explicitly checked.
>  If callers don't know the internals of bdrv_getlength() then it is
> easier to extend it without auditing and changing callers.

Makes sense, I'm not opposed to it.

> Having said that, I did add an if (drv->bdrv_getlength) check into
> bdrv_truncate...

Well, you probably can't do much about it there.

Kevin