From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:38049)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1TwFO3-0003Ch-NM
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 12:05:53 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1TwFO2-0006XC-8d
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 12:05:51 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33589)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1TwFO1-0006X4-Rx
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 12:05:50 -0500
Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r0IH5n33029295
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 12:05:49 -0500
Message-ID: <50F980E9.9000409@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:05:45 +0100
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1358357479-7912-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<1358357479-7912-6-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<50F9668A.4080308@redhat.com> <50F976D8.60303@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <50F976D8.60303@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 05/12] mirror: perform COW if the
 cluster size is bigger than the granularity
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: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com

Am 18.01.2013 17:22, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> I haven't written a testcase for it, it's tricky but should be doable.
> Do you want me to respin, or can it be done as a followup?

I think I would prefer a respin, but if you think otherwise, I won't insist.

> I would prefer a followup also because it will give a better pointer when
> we backport this fix to the RHEL6 code.

That's not really a valid argument for upstream.

Also, wouldn't we backport the fixed version in the first place so that
a pointer isn't even needed? This code doesn't seem to exist yet in RHEL 6.

Kevin