29.06.2018 20:36, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
29.06.2018 19:38, John Snow wrote:
On 06/29/2018 11:15 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Image fleecing, or external (or pull) backup scheme is near to
complete.
Here is forgotten test, written by Fam in far 2014, with two my
necessary
patches, previously sent separately, so the series are called "v2"
v2:
01: add transaction support
02: rebase on master, drop "'fleecing-filter':
'BlockdevCreateNotSupported'"
add empty .bdrv_close
add default .bdrv_child_perm
03: comparing to [PATCH v20 15/15] qemu-iotests: Image fleecing
test case 08:
add -f iotests.imgfmt to qemu_io
fix target_img to be always qcow2
add -r to qemu_io for nbd
add fleecing-filter layer
wrap long lines
Fam Zheng (1):
qemu-iotests: Image fleecing test case 222
Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy (2):
blockdev-backup: enable non-root nodes for backup source
block/fleecing-filter: new filter driver for fleecing
qapi/block-core.json | 6 ++-
block/fleecing-filter.c | 80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
blockdev.c | 4 +-
block/Makefile.objs | 1 +
tests/qemu-iotests/222 | 112
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
tests/qemu-iotests/222.out | 5 ++
tests/qemu-iotests/group | 1 +
7 files changed, 205 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 block/fleecing-filter.c
create mode 100755 tests/qemu-iotests/222
create mode 100644 tests/qemu-iotests/222.out
Have you been able to reproduce a race that proves the filter is
necessary, or can you explain how it might happen?
No. But same logic is in block/replication, and I remember, that I
discussed it on list, and the case I've described in 02 is not my idea.
found: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-08/msg01807.html
I think I mentioned it once as a possibility but I hadn't convinced
myself.
--
Best regards,
Vladimir
