qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/3] image fleecing


From: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/3] image fleecing
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 20:36:34 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0

29.06.2018 19:38, John Snow wrote:

On 06/29/2018 11:15 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Image fleecing, or external (or pull) backup scheme is near to complete.
Here is forgotten test, written by Fam in far 2014, with two my necessary
patches, previously sent separately, so the series are called "v2"

v2:
  01: add transaction support
  02: rebase on master, drop "'fleecing-filter': 'BlockdevCreateNotSupported'"
      add empty .bdrv_close
      add default .bdrv_child_perm
  03: comparing to [PATCH v20 15/15] qemu-iotests: Image fleecing test case 08:
      add -f iotests.imgfmt to qemu_io
      fix target_img to be always qcow2
      add -r to qemu_io for nbd
      add fleecing-filter layer
      wrap long lines

Fam Zheng (1):
   qemu-iotests: Image fleecing test case 222

Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy (2):
   blockdev-backup: enable non-root nodes for backup source
   block/fleecing-filter: new filter driver for fleecing

  qapi/block-core.json       |   6 ++-
  block/fleecing-filter.c    |  80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  blockdev.c                 |   4 +-
  block/Makefile.objs        |   1 +
  tests/qemu-iotests/222     | 112 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  tests/qemu-iotests/222.out |   5 ++
  tests/qemu-iotests/group   |   1 +
  7 files changed, 205 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
  create mode 100644 block/fleecing-filter.c
  create mode 100755 tests/qemu-iotests/222
  create mode 100644 tests/qemu-iotests/222.out

Have you been able to reproduce a race that proves the filter is
necessary, or can you explain how it might happen?

No. But same logic is in block/replication, and I remember, that I discussed it on list, and the case I've described in 02 is not my idea.


I think I mentioned it once as a possibility but I hadn't convinced myself.


--
Best regards,
Vladimir




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]