On 04/17/2015 11:06 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 04/08/2015 04:19 PM, John Snow wrote:
Reviewed-by: Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: John Snow <js...@redhat.com>
---
docs/bitmaps.md | 311 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 311 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 docs/bitmaps.md
diff --git a/docs/bitmaps.md b/docs/bitmaps.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ad8c33b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/bitmaps.md
@@ -0,0 +1,311 @@
+# Dirty Bitmaps and Incremental Backup
+
Still might be nice to list explicit copyright/license instead of
relying on implicit top-level GPLv2+, but I won't insist.
I think I would rather not clutter up the document itself, if that
remains suitable. I don't mind those declarations in source code, but
for a document like this, it seems weird to have it in the preamble.
I can attach a license to the footer, if that's suitable?
+### Deletion
+
+* Can be performed on a disabled bitmap, but not a frozen one.
Do you still have a notion of disabled bitmaps? Earlier, in '## Bitmap
Modes', you only document 'frozen' (as opposed to the default unnamed
state).
We do internally. It's not likely to come up from a user's perspective,
but we do intend to disable the bitmap during e.g. migration, boot, etc.
I did pull the "disabled" bit out because it's not a necessary detail yet.
I'll tidy this up and reintroduce the language alongside the patch that
may expose the user to witnessing a disabled bitmap.
+
+## Transactions (Not yet implemented)
I'm assuming that "[PATCH v2 00/11] block: incremental backup
transactions" is incomplete, because it forgot to clean this up as part
of adding transaction support.
Fixed in my local copy, yes.
+
+5. Retry the command after fixing the underlaying problem,
s/underlaying/underlying/
:(
