On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> wrote: > Given that a cancel shouldn't happen too often, I think it would be > reasonable to take the same approach for qcow2. I don't think adding a > lot of complexity for getting this right is justified. > > Stefan, what do you think? Maybe we could even have a default > implementation in generic block code?
Yes, I agree that the simple cancellation approach is a good trade-off since cancellation is rare. It guarantees that the image is consistent on disk and that in-memory resources are freed properly. Stefan
