On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 10:57:48AM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > >
> > > > BLOCK_OP_TYPE_MIRROR_REPLACE is checked and blocked by
> > > > block-job-complete
> > > > during the time the mirror finish when an arbitrary node of the graph
> > > > must be
> > > > replaced.
> > >
> > > It seems to me
On Mon, 09/15 15:17, Benoît Canet wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:48:33AM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > On Tue, 09/09 14:28, Benoît Canet wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 01:56:46PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > > > Am 22.08.2014 um 18:11 hat Benoît Canet geschrieben:
> > > > > Since the block
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:48:33AM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Tue, 09/09 14:28, Benoît Canet wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 01:56:46PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > > Am 22.08.2014 um 18:11 hat Benoît Canet geschrieben:
> > > > Since the block layer code is starting to modify the BDS graph rig
On Tue, 09/09 14:28, Benoît Canet wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 01:56:46PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 22.08.2014 um 18:11 hat Benoît Canet geschrieben:
> > > Since the block layer code is starting to modify the BDS graph right in
> > > the
> > > middle of BDS chains (block-mirror's replace
Am 10.09.2014 um 17:49 hat Benoît Canet geschrieben:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 09:14:35AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> > On 09/10/2014 02:54 AM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> >
> > >> Let's think of a situation that recursive blockers protect but
> > >> backing_blocker does not:
> > >>
> > >> a <- b <- c <- d
On Wed, 09/10 09:14, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 09/10/2014 02:54 AM, Fam Zheng wrote:
>
> >> Let's think of a situation that recursive blockers protect but
> >> backing_blocker does not:
> >>
> >> a <- b <- c <- d
> >>
> >> c is the backing file and is therefore protected by the op blocker.
> >>
> >>
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 09:14:35AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 09/10/2014 02:54 AM, Fam Zheng wrote:
>
> >> Let's think of a situation that recursive blockers protect but
> >> backing_blocker does not:
> >>
> >> a <- b <- c <- d
> >>
> >> c is the backing file and is therefore protected by the o
On 09/10/2014 02:54 AM, Fam Zheng wrote:
>> Let's think of a situation that recursive blockers protect but
>> backing_blocker does not:
>>
>> a <- b <- c <- d
>>
>> c is the backing file and is therefore protected by the op blocker.
>>
>> The block-commit command works with node-names, however, so
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 04:54:19PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Thu, 09/04 21:42, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 06:45:54AM +, Benoît Canet wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:42:04PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 08/25 12:12, Benoît Canet wrote:
> > > > > On M
On Thu, 09/04 21:42, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 06:45:54AM +, Benoît Canet wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:42:04PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > On Mon, 08/25 12:12, Benoît Canet wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 05:37:37PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > > > On M
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 01:56:46PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 22.08.2014 um 18:11 hat Benoît Canet geschrieben:
> > Since the block layer code is starting to modify the BDS graph right in the
> > middle of BDS chains (block-mirror's replace parameter for example) QEMU
> > needs
> > to properly
Am 22.08.2014 um 18:11 hat Benoît Canet geschrieben:
> Since the block layer code is starting to modify the BDS graph right in the
> middle of BDS chains (block-mirror's replace parameter for example) QEMU needs
> to properly block and unblock whole BDS subtrees; recursion is a neat way to
> achiev
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 06:45:54AM +, Benoît Canet wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:42:04PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > On Mon, 08/25 12:12, Benoît Canet wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 05:37:37PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 08/25 09:06, Benoît Canet wrote:
> > > > > On Mon,
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:42:04PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Mon, 08/25 12:12, Benoît Canet wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 05:37:37PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > On Mon, 08/25 09:06, Benoît Canet wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 02:04:24PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 08
On Mon, 08/25 12:12, Benoît Canet wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 05:37:37PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > On Mon, 08/25 09:06, Benoît Canet wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 02:04:24PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 08/22 18:11, Benoît Canet wrote:
> > > > > Since the block layer code i
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 05:37:37PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Mon, 08/25 09:06, Benoît Canet wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 02:04:24PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > On Fri, 08/22 18:11, Benoît Canet wrote:
> > > > Since the block layer code is starting to modify the BDS graph right in
> > >
On Mon, 08/25 09:06, Benoît Canet wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 02:04:24PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > On Fri, 08/22 18:11, Benoît Canet wrote:
> > > Since the block layer code is starting to modify the BDS graph right in
> > > the
> > > middle of BDS chains (block-mirror's replace parameter fo
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 02:04:24PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Fri, 08/22 18:11, Benoît Canet wrote:
> > Since the block layer code is starting to modify the BDS graph right in the
> > middle of BDS chains (block-mirror's replace parameter for example) QEMU
> > needs
> > to properly block and unb
On Fri, 08/22 18:11, Benoît Canet wrote:
> Since the block layer code is starting to modify the BDS graph right in the
> middle of BDS chains (block-mirror's replace parameter for example) QEMU needs
> to properly block and unblock whole BDS subtrees; recursion is a neat way to
> achieve this task.
Since the block layer code is starting to modify the BDS graph right in the
middle of BDS chains (block-mirror's replace parameter for example) QEMU needs
to properly block and unblock whole BDS subtrees; recursion is a neat way to
achieve this task.
This patch also takes care of modifying the op
20 matches
Mail list logo