On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 02:37:13PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:49:16AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 10:13:24AM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> >>On 08.09.2015 18:04, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > following backing chain: D (top) -
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:49:16AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 10:13:24AM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 08.09.2015 18:04, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>> following backing chain: D (top) -> B -> C (bottom), because in
>>> both cases B and C are there just for readi
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 10:13:24AM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 08.09.2015 18:04, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >>> following backing chain: D (top) -> B -> C (bottom), because in
> >>> both cases B and C are there just for reading. In order to
> >>> achieve that we must lock the rest of backi
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 10:13:24 +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 08.09.2015 18:04, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:59:45PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 17:17:19 +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1
On 08.09.2015 18:04, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:59:45PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 17:17:19 +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1192399
>>>
>>> It's known fact for a while now that we should not only l
On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 17:17:19 +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1192399
>
> It's known fact for a while now that we should not only lock the
> top level layers of backing chain but the rest of it too. And
> well known too that we are not doing that. We
On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 05:59:45PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 17:17:19 +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1192399
> >
> > It's known fact for a while now that we should not only lock the
> > top level layers of backing chain but
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1192399
It's known fact for a while now that we should not only lock the
top level layers of backing chain but the rest of it too. And
well known too that we are not doing that. Well, up until this
commit. The reason is that while one guest can have for