On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:18:04 +0100 Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Am 01.03.2012 17:02, schrieb Luiz Capitulino: > > On Thu, 1 Mar 2012 12:21:42 +0100 > > Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> This implements all ingredients to establish mirrored writes. > > > > This looks good to me. I just have two comments: > > > > 1. I'm wondering if it would make more sense to have this transaction > > operation in qmp instead of the block layer. Looks more complex to do > > though, > > so I'm ok with this implementation > > Depends on what you're thinking of. Renaming the command to just > 'transaction' and allowing anything to be added to the union wouldn't be > very complex. > > The one thing we would need to change in order to make it generally > useful is to move the actual logic into prepare/commit/abort handlers. I > discussed this with Paolo on IRC and I think the conclusion was that for > now the approach in the patches is good enough, but in the long run > we'll switch. It doesn't affect external interfaces, so we can do it > whenever we like. Yes, that's what I called "transaction operation in qmp", but I don't mind accepting this one and deferring the more complex idea to the future.
