[libvirt] [PATCH 0/9] Slightly rework our streams

[Michal Privoznik]

On 20.04.2016 16:04, John Ferlan wrote:
> 
> 
> On 04/15/2016 09:51 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>> This is not the big patch set that enables sparse streams. Not
>> just yet. I'm merely sending first few patches that prepare the
>> environment for that. These can, however, go in independent of
>> sparse streams.
>>
>> Michal Privoznik (9):
>>   daemonClientStream: Use unsigned int to store stream @serial
>>   daemon stream: Prefer bool over unsigned int var:1
>>   daemon stream: Convert @tx in daemonClientStream to bool
>>   daemon stream: Remove useless empty lines from header file
>>   virNetClientCallDispatchStream: Update comment
>>   daemonStreamHandleRead: Rework to follow our coding pattern
>>   Revert "rpc: Fix slow volume download (virsh vol-download)"
>>   virnetclientstream: Process stream messages later
>>   virStream{Recv,Send}All: Increase client buffer
>>
>>  daemon/stream.c               | 116 +++++++++++++++----------------
>>  daemon/stream.h               |   2 -
>>  src/libvirt-stream.c          |   5 +-
>>  src/rpc/virnetclient.c        |   6 +-
>>  src/rpc/virnetclientstream.c  | 158 +++++++++++++++---------------------------
>>  src/rpc/virnetserverprogram.c |  12 ++--
>>  src/rpc/virnetserverprogram.h |   4 +-
>>  7 files changed, 129 insertions(+), 174 deletions(-)
>>
> 
> I'm assuming for patch 2-3, the memory for the int -> bool conversions
> is all "local" to the client side...
> 
> I've made comments on a few patches... I'm not an expert in this space
> by any stretch - hopefully Martin can look at patch 8 (and since it goes
> w/ 7 - they're a matched set.
> 
> ACK for at at least 1-6... I'm OK with 7&8 (although I had a double
> check type question in 8 regarding the while loop and usage of 'want' as
> a loop control along with the st->rx that could have been Queue'd.
> 
> I'm OK with patch 9 as well - I think it's fine - a bit more memory for
> a bit less back and forth.  Standard tradeoff to me ;-). Perhaps someone
> else may have agita over it though, so lets just be sure no one does
> before pushing that one.


Thank you, I've pushed 1-6 for now as I wait for more reviews on the rest.

Michal