Hi all!

Here are two small fixes.

01 is not a degradation at all, so it's OK for 4.2
02 is degradation of 3.0, so it's possibly OK for 4.2 too,
   but it seems to be real bug and fix is very simple, so,
   may be 4.1 is better

Or you may take the whole series to 4.1 if you want.

Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy (3):
  block/backup: deal with zero detection
  block/backup: disable copy_range for compressed backup
  block/backup: refactor write_flags

 block/backup.c | 31 ++++++++++++++-----------------
 blockdev.c     |  8 ++++----
 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)

-- 
2.18.0

On 7/30/19 12:32 PM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> Hi all!
> 
> Here are two small fixes.
> 
> 01 is not a degradation at all, so it's OK for 4.2
> 02 is degradation of 3.0, so it's possibly OK for 4.2 too,
>    but it seems to be real bug and fix is very simple, so,
>    may be 4.1 is better
> 
> Or you may take the whole series to 4.1 if you want.
> 

I think (1) and (2) can go in for stable after review, but they're not
crucial for 4.1 especially at this late of a stage. Should be cataclysms
only right now.

--js

30.07.2019 21:41, John Snow wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/30/19 12:32 PM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> Hi all!
>>
>> Here are two small fixes.
>>
>> 01 is not a degradation at all, so it's OK for 4.2
>> 02 is degradation of 3.0, so it's possibly OK for 4.2 too,
>>     but it seems to be real bug and fix is very simple, so,
>>     may be 4.1 is better
>>
>> Or you may take the whole series to 4.1 if you want.
>>
> 
> I think (1) and (2) can go in for stable after review, but they're not
> crucial for 4.1 especially at this late of a stage. Should be cataclysms
> only right now.
> 
> --js
> 

I can rebase it than on your bitmaps branch. Or, if we want it for stable, maybe,
I shouldn't?

-- 
Best regards,
Vladimir

On 7/31/19 6:29 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> 30.07.2019 21:41, John Snow wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/19 12:32 PM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>>> Hi all!
>>>
>>> Here are two small fixes.
>>>
>>> 01 is not a degradation at all, so it's OK for 4.2
>>> 02 is degradation of 3.0, so it's possibly OK for 4.2 too,
>>>     but it seems to be real bug and fix is very simple, so,
>>>     may be 4.1 is better
>>>
>>> Or you may take the whole series to 4.1 if you want.
>>>
>>
>> I think (1) and (2) can go in for stable after review, but they're not
>> crucial for 4.1 especially at this late of a stage. Should be cataclysms
>> only right now.
>>
>> --js
>>
> 
> I can rebase it than on your bitmaps branch. Or, if we want it for stable, maybe,
> I shouldn't?
> 

Good point. Keep it based on main and I'll slip it in at the beginning
of the staging queue.

--js

On 7/31/19 6:29 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> 30.07.2019 21:41, John Snow wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/19 12:32 PM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>>> Hi all!
>>>
>>> Here are two small fixes.
>>>
>>> 01 is not a degradation at all, so it's OK for 4.2
>>> 02 is degradation of 3.0, so it's possibly OK for 4.2 too,
>>>     but it seems to be real bug and fix is very simple, so,
>>>     may be 4.1 is better
>>>
>>> Or you may take the whole series to 4.1 if you want.
>>>
>>
>> I think (1) and (2) can go in for stable after review, but they're not
>> crucial for 4.1 especially at this late of a stage. Should be cataclysms
>> only right now.

You found a cataclysm :(

>>
>> --js
>>
> 
> I can rebase it than on your bitmaps branch. Or, if we want it for stable, maybe,
> I shouldn't?
> 

I rebased these two patches (1 and 3) on top of bitmaps, on top of rc4.

Thanks, applied to my bitmaps tree:

https://github.com/jnsnow/qemu/commits/bitmaps
https://github.com/jnsnow/qemu.git

--js