Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v3 1/1] drive-mirror: add incremental mode

[Eric Blake]

On 1/30/19 10:01 PM, mahaocong wrote:
> From: mahaocong <address@hidden>
> 

You are STILL missing the commit message body, even though I requested
it [1].  Please 'git commit --amend', and paste in the contents that you
are sticking in your 0/1 cover letter that actually describe the details
behind this patch. Also, since you are sending a single patch, you don't
need a 0/1 cover letter (they are mandatory if you send 2 or more
patches in series; but don't add anything when you send just one patch,
although they don't hurt, as long as you do a correct division between
cover letter having information for the reviewer and patch itself having
a self-contained commit message).

[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-01/msg00122.html

> Signed-off-by: mahaocong <address@hidden>

I previously mentioned [2] that you probably want to use a proper name
(typically more than one word), not a username. While I am not in a
position to argue whether 'mahaocong' is how you sign legal documents,
or what you may use in other open source projects, it is at least
courteous to reply to a reviewer's request when stating that you are
intentionally not going to do something about the request.

[2] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-01/msg00407.html

> ---

Here, after the --- marker, is a good place to describe how v3 differs
from v2, to speed up reviewers efforts if they have already looked at
the earlier version, and want to see what you changed in response to
their comments.

Just a UI review on my part (I haven't looked at the code proper, in
part because I'm still waiting for you to fix the commit message problem
- it's tough to justify reviewing in more depth when there are things
from the earlier version that are still not corrected)

> +++ b/qapi/block-core.json
> @@ -1727,6 +1727,11 @@
>  #        (all the disk, only the sectors allocated in the topmost image, or
>  #        only new I/O).
>  #
> +# @bitmap: the name of user-created-bitmap which is used on incremental mode
> +#          drive-mirror. If user select incremental mode, bitmap should not 
> be
> +#          null, and can not set granularity, because the mirror bitmap 
> should
> +#          have the same granularity with user-created-bitmap.

Missing a '(since 4.0)' tag. The grammar is awkward; maybe:

@bitmap: the name of a pre-existing bitmap to use in incremental mode;
must be present for incremental mode and absent otherwise. In
incremental mode, granularity should not be set, because the bitmap's
granularity is used instead.

-- 
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3226
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature