From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:55779)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1S2lyM-0000zM-AW
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:02:10 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1S2lyF-0005E7-7V
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:01:45 -0500
Received: from mail-pw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.160.47]:60616)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1S2lyE-0005Dp-Uq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:01:39 -0500
Received: by pbbrp12 with SMTP id rp12so6023802pbb.34
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:01:36 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4F4E4BDA.9000304@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:01:30 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1330473276-8975-1-git-send-email-mjt@tls.msk.ru>
	<1330473276-8975-4-git-send-email-mjt@msgid.tls.msk.ru>
In-Reply-To: <1330473276-8975-4-git-send-email-mjt@msgid.tls.msk.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/3] Combine bdrv_co_readv and
	bdrv_co_writev into bdrv_co_rw_vector
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>
Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Il 29/02/2012 00:54, Michael Tokarev ha scritto:
>      BlockDriver *drv = bs->drv;
>      BdrvTrackedRequest req;
> +    bool is_write = flags & (BDRV_REQ_WRITE|BDRV_REQ_ZERO_WRITE);
>      int ret;

You can do BDRV_REQ_WRITE|BDRV_REQ_ZERO_WRITE, but not
BDRV_REQ_READ|BDRV_REQ_COPY_ON_READ.  That's ugly.

> +/* defines for is_write for bdrv_*_rw_vector */
> +#define BDRV_READ	false
> +#define BDRV_WRITE	true
> +

Please no, if you have to do this just change to bits.  This would have
the advantage of passing all the flags, including COPY_ON_READ.  In some
sense discard could be treated as a write too.

I don't oppose this change completely, in fact I think adding the flags
to co_readv/co_writev would be a good change.  But I'm skeptical, the
actual amount of unification is not that large.

Paolo