[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] qapi: Allow introspecting fix for savevm's cooperatio
From: |
Markus Armbruster |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] qapi: Allow introspecting fix for savevm's cooperation with blockdev |
Date: |
Fri, 11 Oct 2019 13:10:54 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) |
Kevin Wolf <address@hidden> writes:
> Am 11.10.2019 um 08:08 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben:
>> Kevin Wolf <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>> > Am 02.10.2019 um 13:57 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben:
[...]
>> >> So the problem is certain (common & sane) -blockdev use makes savevm
>> >> create additional, unwanted snapshots.
>> >
>> > Actually, the most common protocol driver is file-posix, which doesn't
>> > support snapshots, so usually the result was that savevm just fails
>> > because it can't snapshot something that it (incorrectly) thinks it
>> > should snapshot.
>>
>> v3's commit message:
>>
>> qapi: Allow introspecting fix for savevm's cooperation with blockdev
>>
>> 'savevm' was buggy as it considered all monitor-owned block device nodes
>> for snapshot. With introduction of -blockdev the common usage made all
>> nodes including protocol and backing file nodes monitor-owned and thus
>> considered for snapshot.
>>
>> This is a problem since the 'file' protocol nodes can't have internal
>> snapshots and it does not make sense to take snapshot of nodes
>> representing backing files.
>>
>> This was fixed by commit 05f4aced658a02b02 clients need to be able to
>> detect whether this fix is present.
>
> Something is missing in this sentence. I think you lost the "but" from
> the original message.
I fixed this in v4 by inserting a period. I wasn't aware we had lost a
"but".
>> Since savevm does not have an QMP alternative, add the feature for the
>> 'human-monitor-command' backdoor which is used to call this command in
>> modern use.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Krempa <address@hidden>
>>
>> Kevin, is this explanation sufficiently correct & complete?
>
> Looks good to me otherwise.
Thanks!