On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> You could assert() this:
> assert(argc % (4 * sizeof(long)) == 0);
Yeah, but actually I'm not really like the idea to include asserts in
the little bottleneck functions if the configuration script doesn't
include -DNDEBUG in the compiler cf
On 18.05.2011 13:31, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Please move the declarations to the start of the function.
I also would use a single line like "long d0, d1, d2, d3;", but that's
up to you.
+
+for(i = 0; i< len; i += 4) {
+d0 = ((const long*) sector)[i + 0];
+d1 = ((const long*) sec
On 18 May 2011 10:40, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 18 May 2011 10:18, Dmitry Konishchev wrote:
>
>> + * Attention! The len must be a multiple of 4 * sizeof(long) due to
>> + * restriction of optimizations in this function.
>
> You could assert() this:
> assert(argc % (4 * sizeof(long)) == 0);
s/le
On 18 May 2011 10:18, Dmitry Konishchev wrote:
> + * Attention! The len must be a multiple of 4 * sizeof(long) due to
> + * restriction of optimizations in this function.
You could assert() this:
assert(argc % (4 * sizeof(long)) == 0);
-- PMM
Am 18.05.2011 11:18, schrieb Dmitry Konishchev:
> On 18.05.2011 11:57, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> Yes, optimizing is_not_zero() is good. The only additional thing I
>> suggest is adding a comment before the function to document the length
>> constraint.
>
> OK, fixed.
>
>
> On 18.05.2011 12:05,
On 18.05.2011 11:57, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
Yes, optimizing is_not_zero() is good. The only additional thing I
suggest is adding a comment before the function to document the length
constraint.
OK, fixed.
On 18.05.2011 12:05, Kevin Wolf wrote:
A future bdrv_is_allocated() patch must make su
Am 18.05.2011 09:57, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Dmitry Konishchev
> wrote:
>> So, if you are agreed with the said above, you can accept this patch
>> and then I'll write an enchancement for it with bdrv_is_allocated()
>> because it is going to include this patch.
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Dmitry Konishchev wrote:
> So, if you are agreed with the said above, you can accept this patch
> and then I'll write an enchancement for it with bdrv_is_allocated()
> because it is going to include this patch.
Yes, optimizing is_not_zero() is good. The only addi
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> Please see http://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPatch, which asks
> that patches are sent inline (not as attachments) for easy review and
> that you follow the coding style (see the CODING_STYLE file). Patches
> also need a Signed-off-by
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Dmitry Konishchev wrote:
> Hi! I was wondering why qemu-img consumes so much CPU when it converts
> one partially allocated qcow2 image to another qcow2 image and I've
> written a patch which improves the situation a little.
Please see http://wiki.qemu.org/Contrib
Hi! I was wondering why qemu-img consumes so much CPU when it converts
one partially allocated qcow2 image to another qcow2 image and I've
written a patch which improves the situation a little.
I have an image:
> $ qemu-img info ubuntu.10.04.qcow2
> image: ubuntu.10.04.qcow2
> file format: qcow2
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
