From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:42882) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SfSyw-0002xt-Dw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 05:38:20 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SfSyq-0006tA-AC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 05:38:17 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33295) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SfSyq-0006t0-25 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 05:38:12 -0400 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q5F9c9T0011142 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 05:38:10 -0400 Message-ID: <4FDB027E.3030907@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:38:06 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1339685702-10176-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1339685702-10176-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/2] introduce bdrv_swap, implement bdrv_append on top List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: jcody@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster Am 14.06.2012 16:55, schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > Yet another tiny bit extracted from block mirroring, looks like it > should be useful for block commit too. > > Paolo Bonzini (2): > block: copy over job and dirty bitmap fields in bdrv_append > block: introduce bdrv_swap, implement bdrv_append on top of it > > block.c | 175 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------- > block.h | 1 + > 2 files changed, 103 insertions(+), 73 deletions(-) > I was really hoping we could get rid of bdrv_append() rather than extend it and spread its use... What exactly do we need this for? I'm sure you have good reasons, but with such hackish approaches the justification should be explicit. Kevin