From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53394)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <fullmanet@gmail.com>) id 1bXUIc-0005lc-D1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 10:16:03 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <fullmanet@gmail.com>) id 1bXUIb-0003oK-Df
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 10:16:02 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160810094400.GE1109@stefanha-x1.localdomain>
References: <20160808113421.27529-1-fullmanet@gmail.com>
	<20160810094400.GE1109@stefanha-x1.localdomain>
From: Reda Sallahi <fullmanet@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 16:16:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAv7hAE5qYhLTeYqkMmqUtOYkyRTVN+ix1ey5WDmf3TYWDtPkA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4] qemu-img: add skip option to dd
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: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org, Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>, Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com>

On 8/10/16, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 01:34:21PM +0200, Reda Sallahi wrote:
>> @@ -4111,6 +4139,10 @@ static int img_dd(int argc, char **argv)
>>
>>      in.buf = g_new(uint8_t, in.bsz);
>>
>> +    if (dd.flags & C_SKIP) {
>> +        incount = in.offset * in.bsz;
>> +    }
>
> Not worth changing unless there are other comments, but does this need
> to be conditional?  If in.offset = 0 because C_SKIP was not specified
> then incount = 0, which is correct.  Unconditional code is simpler.
>
> Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
>

I had to do a rebase with some minor changes anyway so that part will be
changed as well in that version.

-- 
Reda <fullmanet@gmail.com>