From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59212)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mreitz@redhat.com>) id 1VMw0Y-0005AD-IL
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 04:24:16 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mreitz@redhat.com>) id 1VMw0S-0007bu-JP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 04:24:10 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:15068)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mreitz@redhat.com>) id 1VMw0S-0007bb-C5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 04:24:04 -0400
Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8K8O2I1015216
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 04:24:02 -0400
Message-ID: <523C061F.6010003@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:23:59 +0200
From: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1378106712-29856-1-git-send-email-mreitz@redhat.com>
	<523B134C.8060902@redhat.com> <523B33AF.8090607@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <523B33AF.8090607@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 0/8] Add metadata overlap checks
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: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>

On 2013-09-19 19:26, Eric Blake wrote:
> [=E2=80=A6]
> That's good news.  Remember, my question about whether we needed the
> ability for command-line tuning was conditional on whether the tuning
> would make a difference - but if you aren't seeing a difference with
> your benchmark, then we might as well unconditionally enable the
> checking, and not worry about the complexity of exposing additional
> tuning.  Simpler is better if it makes no difference in end.
>
> [Of course, if you WANT to write the patches for making it configurable=
,
> I won't stop you; but now that you answered my question about
> performance, and the answer is the desirable "no measurable impact", I
> don't know that I would ever plan on using such tuning]

In fact, I have written those patches already, so I'll just send them. ;)

Max