[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] more check for replaced node
From: |
Stefan Hajnoczi |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] more check for replaced node |
Date: |
Tue, 14 Jul 2015 13:10:49 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:41:53AM +0800, Wen Congyang wrote:
> On 07/02/2015 10:48 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 04:49:40PM +0800, Wen Congyang wrote:
> >> On 07/01/2015 04:39 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 02:55:10PM +0800, Wen Congyang wrote:
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Wen Congyang <address@hidden>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> block.c | 5 +++--
> >>>> block/mirror.c | 3 ++-
> >>>> blockdev.c | 2 +-
> >>>> include/block/block.h | 3 ++-
> >>>> 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> This patch is missing a commit description. What is the justification
> >>> for this change?
> >>
> >> Sorry, I forgot to add commit messages..
> >>
> >> Without this patch, the replace node can be any node, and it can be
> >> top BDS with BB, or another quorum's child. With this patch, the replace
> >> node
> >> must be this quorum's child.
> >
> > I think the point of the replace operation was to swap a quorum child
> > with a new drive. It sounds like this patch will break that use case?
> >
> > The idea was that a failed child needs to be replaced. The user adds a
> > new -drive and then uses the mirror+replace to include it into the
> > quorum. I think the new child is not be part of the quorum BDS graph
> > until replacement occurs.
>
> bs/s->common.bs is quorum, and to_replace is the broken child.
> The new child is target_bs. With this patch, we just check if
> the broken child is part of the quorum BDS.
>
> Do I misunderstand something?
Thanks for explaining. That makes sense.
Please resend with a commit description.
Stefan
pgpYc5R08s34n.pgp
Description: PGP signature