On Wed, 05/11 13:56, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 11.05.2016 um 13:48 hat Richard W.M. Jones geschrieben: > > While I remember there is another concern that doesn't seem to be > > addressed in this patch series. What happens when a guest is paused? > > I think exclusive locks should be converted to shared locks in that > > case, since (only while the guest is paused) it _is_ safe to fish > > around inside the guest's state. Of course the lock must be restored > > before the guest resumes. > > I think it's still one of the cases where it's appropriate to require an > "I know what I'm doing" flag. In paused guests, you still don't > necessarily see the same contents as the guest does (because of guest > caches). Apart from that, things like block jobs and NBD servers keep > running even with a stopped VM.
Agreed. The external accessor can explicitly specify "lock-image=off" on its command line to fish around. Fam > > The lock can only be dropped in cases where we can justify switching to > BDRV_O_INACTIVE, and I don't think a simple stop/cont should do this. > > Kevin
