Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/7] introduce BSD-licensed block driver for "raw"

[Paolo Bonzini]

Il 21/08/2013 10:20, Laszlo Ersek ha scritto:
> On 08/20/13 10:21, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Am 16.08.2013 um 16:15 hat Laszlo Ersek geschrieben:
>>> Paolo asked me to write such a driver based on his textual specification
>>> alone. The first patch captures his email in full, the rest re-quotes
>>> parts that are being implemented.
>>>
>>> The tree compiles at each patch. The series passes "make check-block".
>>>
>>> "block/raw.c" is not removed because I wanted to keep it out of my
>>> series and out of my brain.
>>>
>>> Disclaimer: I couldn't care less if the raw block driver was public
>>> domain or AGPLv3+, as long as it qualifies as free software. I'm only
>>> trying to do what Paolo asked of me.
>>>
>>> Laszlo Ersek (7):
>>>   add skeleton for BSD licensed "raw" BlockDriver
>>>   raw_bsd: emit debug events in bdrv_co_readv() and bdrv_co_writev()
>>>   raw_bsd: add raw_create()
>>>   raw_bsd: introduce "special members"
>>>   raw_bsd: add raw_create_options
>>>   raw_bsd: register bdrv_raw
>>>   switch raw block driver from "raw.o" to "raw_bsd.o"
>>>
>>>  block/Makefile.objs |    2 +-
>>>  block/raw_bsd.c     |  186 
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  2 files changed, 187 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>  create mode 100644 block/raw_bsd.c
>>
>> Reviewed if the individual added functions make sense, whether all
>> necessary function from struct BlockDriver are implemented, and which
>> fields from BlockDriverState need special handling (it's only bs->sg,
>> and we should probably get rid of that requirement)
>>
>> Looks good in general, but please CC Stefan and me for v2 (like for all
>> block patches).
> 
> Thanks for the review.
> 
> Regarding your comments for 4/7: can we postpone the bdrv_is_sg() change
> to another series?

I think it should be done like that.

> Because, I can't just rebase / update this series as a "normal" series
> -- v2 will still be a "clean room reimplementation", and I must keep
> full history (basically, a documentation of the "clean room process") in
> the commit log.
> 
> So, Paolo's suggestion for 7/7 (ie. raw_reopen_prepare() should just
> return 0) will be a separate 8/8, with his email quoted as commit
> message. (Normally I would just squash the change and add a short v2
> note *outside* the commit log, but that's exactly what we can't do here.)
> 
> ... Maybe I can still squash the change into 7/7, and extend only the
> commit message with Paolo's email, since that includes the wrong v1 code
> too.

Yes, just squash it.

Paolo