On Fri 22 Mar 2019 04:54:59 PM CET, Alberto Garcia wrote:
>E <- D <- C <- B <- A
>
> 2) commit from C to E, then stream from C to A
>
>This fails because the commit job inserts a filter between C and B
>and the bdrv_freeze_backing_chain(bs, base) call in stream_start()
>fails.
>
>
On 22/03/2019 18:54, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> On Thu 21 Mar 2019 03:51:12 PM CET, Alberto Garcia wrote:
>
>> I was checking the tests that run commit and stream in parallel in
>> 030, but they do commit on the upper images and stream on the lower
>> ones, so that's safe. I'll try to run them the
On Thu 21 Mar 2019 03:51:12 PM CET, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> I was checking the tests that run commit and stream in parallel in
> 030, but they do commit on the upper images and stream on the lower
> ones, so that's safe. I'll try to run them the other way around
> because we might have a problem
Am 21.03.2019 um 18:05 hat Andrey Shinkevich geschrieben:
>
>
> On 21/03/2019 13:53, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 20.03.2019 um 18:02 hat Alberto Garcia geschrieben:
> >> On Wed 20 Mar 2019 10:16:10 AM CET, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Oh, I see. Let's use a shorter chain for simplicity:
>
>
On 21.03.2019 20:05, Andrey Shinkevich wrote:
>
>
> On 21/03/2019 13:53, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Am 20.03.2019 um 18:02 hat Alberto Garcia geschrieben:
>>> On Wed 20 Mar 2019 10:16:10 AM CET, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Oh, I see. Let's use a shorter chain for simplicity:
>
> A <- B <- C
On 21/03/2019 13:53, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 20.03.2019 um 18:02 hat Alberto Garcia geschrieben:
>> On Wed 20 Mar 2019 10:16:10 AM CET, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Oh, I see. Let's use a shorter chain for simplicity:
A <- B <- C <- D <- E
>>>
>>> Written from right to left, i.e. E being t
On 21/03/2019 14:53, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> 21.03.2019 13:53, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Am 20.03.2019 um 18:02 hat Alberto Garcia geschrieben:
>>> On Wed 20 Mar 2019 10:16:10 AM CET, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Oh, I see. Let's use a shorter chain for simplicity:
>
> A <- B <-
On 20/03/2019 20:02, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> On Wed 20 Mar 2019 10:16:10 AM CET, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> Oh, I see. Let's use a shorter chain for simplicity:
>>>
>>> A <- B <- C <- D <- E
>>
>> Written from right to left, i.e. E being the base and A the top layer?
>> We usually write things the
Am 21.03.2019 um 15:23 hat Alberto Garcia geschrieben:
> On Thu 21 Mar 2019 09:30:26 AM CET, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> > 20.03.2019 20:25, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> >> On Wed 20 Mar 2019 10:35:27 AM CET, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> Maybe at least this kind of freezing isn't
On Thu 21 Mar 2019 12:53:57 PM CET, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>>> Yes, we probably need to rethink this scenario a bit.
>>
>> But yes, even with a counter, the other problem would still remain
>> (that the first job can't remove the filter on completion because the
>> second one has froz
On Thu 21 Mar 2019 03:53:41 PM CET, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> >>> I think, the correct way, which will support these correct cases
>> >>> (which however don't look like real use cases) is removing base
>> >>> from stream view. Stream should operate instead using
>> >>> bottom-node.
>> >>
>> >> What is
On Thu 21 Mar 2019 09:30:26 AM CET, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> 20.03.2019 20:25, Alberto Garcia wrote:
>> On Wed 20 Mar 2019 10:35:27 AM CET, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Maybe at least this kind of freezing isn't the right tool for block
jobs, after all.
>>>
>>> I think
21.03.2019 13:53, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 20.03.2019 um 18:02 hat Alberto Garcia geschrieben:
>> On Wed 20 Mar 2019 10:16:10 AM CET, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Oh, I see. Let's use a shorter chain for simplicity:
A <- B <- C <- D <- E
>>>
>>> Written from right to left, i.e. E being the ba
Am 20.03.2019 um 18:02 hat Alberto Garcia geschrieben:
> On Wed 20 Mar 2019 10:16:10 AM CET, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >> Oh, I see. Let's use a shorter chain for simplicity:
> >>
> >>A <- B <- C <- D <- E
> >
> > Written from right to left, i.e. E being the base and A the top layer?
> > We usually
20.03.2019 20:25, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> On Wed 20 Mar 2019 10:35:27 AM CET, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>>> Maybe at least this kind of freezing isn't the right tool for block
>>> jobs, after all.
>>
>> I think, the correct way, which will support these correct cases
>> (which however don
On Wed 20 Mar 2019 10:35:27 AM CET, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> Maybe at least this kind of freezing isn't the right tool for block
>> jobs, after all.
>
> I think, the correct way, which will support these correct cases
> (which however don't look like real use cases) is removing base f
On Wed 20 Mar 2019 10:16:10 AM CET, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Oh, I see. Let's use a shorter chain for simplicity:
>>
>>A <- B <- C <- D <- E
>
> Written from right to left, i.e. E being the base and A the top layer?
> We usually write things the other write round, I hope this doesn't get
> too con
20.03.2019 12:16, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 19.03.2019 um 17:19 hat Alberto Garcia geschrieben:
>> On Mon 18 Mar 2019 04:25:10 PM CET, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
>> wrote:
So what we have now is:
A <- B <- C <- D <- E <- F <- G <- H <- I
and we can launch four paralle
Am 19.03.2019 um 17:19 hat Alberto Garcia geschrieben:
> On Mon 18 Mar 2019 04:25:10 PM CET, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
> wrote:
> >> So what we have now is:
> >>
> >> A <- B <- C <- D <- E <- F <- G <- H <- I
> >>
> >> and we can launch four parallel block-stream jobs:
> >>
> >> Fro
On Mon 18 Mar 2019 04:25:10 PM CET, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
wrote:
>> So what we have now is:
>>
>> A <- B <- C <- D <- E <- F <- G <- H <- I
>>
>> and we can launch four parallel block-stream jobs:
>>
>> From C (base) to A
>> From E (base) to C
>> From G (base) to E
>>
On 18/03/2019 18:05, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> On Thu 21 Feb 2019 04:26:38 PM CET, Andrey Shinkevich wrote:
>> The test case TestParallelOps::test_stream_parallel in #030 fails
>> if a base node is protected by the block-stream running job that
>> includes the base node into the job node list (bloc
18.03.2019 18:05, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> On Thu 21 Feb 2019 04:26:38 PM CET, Andrey Shinkevich wrote:
>> The test case TestParallelOps::test_stream_parallel in #030 fails
>> if a base node is protected by the block-stream running job that
>> includes the base node into the job node list (block_job
On Thu 21 Feb 2019 04:26:38 PM CET, Andrey Shinkevich wrote:
> The test case TestParallelOps::test_stream_parallel in #030 fails
> if a base node is protected by the block-stream running job that
> includes the base node into the job node list (block_job_add_bdrv)
> without BLK_PERM_GRAPH_MOD share
The test case TestParallelOps::test_stream_parallel in #030 fails
if a base node is protected by the block-stream running job that
includes the base node into the job node list (block_job_add_bdrv)
without BLK_PERM_GRAPH_MOD shared permission.
The block-stream job would own the base node not allowi
24 matches
Mail list logo