[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] block/block-copy: hide structure definitions

From: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] block/block-copy: hide structure definitions
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 10:26:36 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1

17.02.2020 17:04, Max Reitz wrote:
On 27.11.19 19:08, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Hide structure definitions and add explicit API instead, to keep an
eye on the scope of the shared fields.

Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <address@hidden>
  include/block/block-copy.h | 57 +++------------------------------
  block/backup-top.c         |  6 ++--
  block/backup.c             | 27 ++++++++--------
  block/block-copy.c         | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  4 files changed, 86 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-)


diff --git a/block/backup.c b/block/backup.c
index cf62b1a38c..acab0d08da 100644
--- a/block/backup.c
+++ b/block/backup.c


@@ -458,6 +458,7 @@ BlockJob *backup_job_create(const char *job_id, 
BlockDriverState *bs,
      job->sync_bitmap = sync_bitmap;
      job->bitmap_mode = bitmap_mode;
      job->bcs = bcs;
+    job->bcs_bitmap = block_copy_dirty_bitmap(bcs);

It seems a bit weird to me to store a pointer to the BCS-owned bitmap
here, because, well, it’s a BCS-owned object, and just calling
block_copy_dirty_bitmap() every time wouldn’t be prohibitively expensive.

I feel sufficiently bad about this to warrant not giving an R-b, but I
know I shouldn’t withhold an R-b over this, so:

Reviewed-by: Max Reitz <address@hidden>

Hmm, actually, I tend to agree with you. Why did I write it so? I'll look and 
may be change it
to block_copy_dirty_bitmap() calls every time.

Thanks for reviewing!

      job->cluster_size = cluster_size;
      job->len = len;

Best regards,

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]