Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 04/12] qapi: Convert delvm

[Wenchao Xia <xiawenc@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

于 2013-4-25 20:21, Eric Blake 写道:
> On 04/25/2013 12:58 AM, Wenchao Xia wrote:
>>
>>>> +        char buf[256];
>>>
>>> I know this fixed-size buffer is just a copy-and-paste from other code
>>> that displays snapshot information, but I really hate it. On the other
>>> hand, I can tolerate if we have it as an intermediate step between two
>>> series that both land in the same release.
>>>
>>> If your series goes in first, Wenchao's series that cleans up the
>>> fixed-size buffer will need to be rebased to tweak this additional spot.
>>>    If Wenchao's patches go in first, then you will have a bit of rebase
>>> work to do.  Since we are already deferring this series into 1.6, I
>>> think it would be nice to post a unified series of the best of both
>>> authors, rather than continuing to waffle on what should go in first.
>>    That would be a very long serial, taking time to rebase for any code
>> change in it, that is why I haven't consider it before.
>
> s/serial/series/
>
> But it would at least have the end goal in mind, instead of trying to
> debate what the end goal is between two different series.
>
>>
>>> [And if I keep saying that often enough, I may end up getting my hands
>>> dirty and becoming the person that posts such a unified patch, although
>>    Pls don't, I guess it would not be a good experience working in a
>> long serial which may need modification later.
>
> Sometimes, letting an additional author join in on attempting to post
> patches can be productive.  But I certainly don't want to make it feel
> like a hostile takeover - we've got plenty of time before 1.6, so I
> don't mind letting you work through a few more revisions of the series.
>
>>    My serial serves mainly for block image's info querying, different
>> with Pavel, one serial fixing all is not easy to make.
>>    Instead, I'll send out small serial change the common part:
>> 1 better bdrv_snapshot_find().
>> 2 hmp/qemu-img dumping info code().
>>    Then we rebase on it, as two serial, do you think it is OK?
>
> Splitting into pieces is also okay, as long as the pieces make sense.  I
> see several piecemeal changes being attempted between the two series
> with several conflicts if we don't factor out common parts, such as
> moving snapshot-related code into a new file, making snapshot lookup
> cleaner, removing hard-coded length limits on HMP snapshot display.
> Yes, getting the common parts clean as one series, then doing two more
> relatively-independent series of 1. better query output, 2. QMP
> counterpart to snapshot manipulations, is probably workable.
>
   OK, I'll send out 2 serial clean the common part. Pavel, please
wait for mine serial before v3.

-- 
Best Regards

Wenchao Xia