Am 11.06.2012 14:09, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi: > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Jeff Cody <jc...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 06/08/2012 12:11 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote: >>> Am 08.06.2012 16:32, schrieb Jeff Cody: >>>> On 06/08/2012 09:53 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Jeff Cody <jc...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 06/08/2012 08:42 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >>>>>>> Let's figure out how to specify block-commit so we're all happy, that >>>>>>> way we can avoid duplicating work. Any comments on my notes above? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think we are almost completely on the same page - devil is in the >>>>>> details, of course (for instance, on how to convert the destination base >>>>>> from r/o to r/w). >>>>> >>>>> Great. The atomic r/o -> r/w transition and the commit coroutine can >>>>> be implemented on in parallel. Are you happy to implement the atomic >>>>> r/o -> r/w transition since you wrote bdrv_append()? Then Zhi Hui can >>>>> assume that part already works and focus on implementing the commit >>>>> coroutine in the meantime. I'm just suggesting a way to split up the >>>>> work, please let me know if you think this is good. >>>> >>>> I am happy to do it that way. I'll shift my focus to the atomic image >>>> reopen in r/w mode. I'll go ahead and post my diagrams and other info >>>> for block-commit on the wiki, because I don't think it conflicts with we >>>> discussed above (although I will modify my diagrams to not show commit >>>> from the top-level image). Of course, feel free to change it as >>>> necessary. >>> >>> I may have mentioned it before, but just in case: I think Supriya's >>> bdrv_reopen() patches are a good starting point. I don't know why they >>> were never completed, but I think we all agreed on the general design, >>> so it should be possible to pick that up. >>> >>> Though if you have already started with your own work on it, Jeff, I >>> expect that it won't be much different because it's basically the same >>> transactional approach that you know and that we already used for group >>> snapshots. >>> >> >> I will definitely use parts of Supriya's as it makes sense - what I >> started work on is similar to bdrv_append() and the current transaction >> approach, so there will be plenty in common to reuse, even with some >> differences. > > I have CCed Supriya who has been working on the reopen patch series. > She is close to posting a new version.
It's just a bit disappointing that it takes several months between each two versions of the patch series. We'd like to have this in qemu 1.2, not only in qemu 1.14. I can understand if someone can't find the time, but then allow at least someone else to pick it up. Kevin