qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 0/6]: block: Add I/O status support


From: Luiz Capitulino
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 0/6]: block: Add I/O status support
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:09:45 -0300

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:40:06 +0200
Kevin Wolf <address@hidden> wrote:

> Am 01.09.2011 20:37, schrieb Luiz Capitulino:
> > This series adds support to the block layer to keep track of devices'
> > I/O status. That information is also made available in QMP and HMP.
> > 
> > The goal here is to allow management applications that miss the
> > BLOCK_IO_ERROR event to able to query the VM to determine if any device has
> > caused the VM to stop and which device caused it.
> > 
> > Please, note that this series depends on the following series:
> > 
> >  o [PATCH v3 0/8]: Introduce the RunState type
> >  o http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2011-09/msg00118.html
> > 
> > And to be able to properly test it you'll also need:
> > 
> >  o [PATCH 0/3] qcow2/coroutine fixes
> >  o http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2011-09/msg00074.html
> > 
> > Here's an HMP example:
> > 
> >   (qemu) info status 
> >   VM status: paused (io-error)
> >   (qemu) info block
> >   ide0-hd0: removable=0 io-status=ok file=disks/test2.img ro=0 drv=qcow2 
> > encrypted=0
> >   ide0-hd1: removable=0 io-status=nospace file=/dev/vg_doriath/kvmtest ro=0 
> > drv=qcow2 encrypted=0
> >   ide1-cd0: removable=1 locked=0 io-status=ok [not inserted]
> >   floppy0: removable=1 locked=0 [not inserted]
> >   sd0: removable=1 locked=0 [not inserted]
> > 
> > The "info status" command shows that the VM is stopped due to an I/O error.
> > By issuing "info block" it's possible to determine that the 'ide0-hd1' 
> > device
> > caused the error, which turns out to be due to no space.
> 
> Looks like I didn't reply here yet?

No, you didn't.

> I still don't quite like that the devices are involved, but their part
> is minimal and it makes the implementation much easier, so for me that's
> acceptable.

Suggestions on better ways of implementing this are welcome! :)



reply via email to

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