Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 2/2] virDomainLockManagerAddImage: Recursively lock backing chain

2015-09-09 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
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) -

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 2/2] virDomainLockManagerAddImage: Recursively lock backing chain

2015-09-09 Thread Martin Kletzander
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

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 2/2] virDomainLockManagerAddImage: Recursively lock backing chain

2015-09-09 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
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

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 2/2] virDomainLockManagerAddImage: Recursively lock backing chain

2015-09-09 Thread Peter Krempa
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

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 2/2] virDomainLockManagerAddImage: Recursively lock backing chain

2015-09-09 Thread Michal Privoznik
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

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 2/2] virDomainLockManagerAddImage: Recursively lock backing chain

2015-09-08 Thread Peter Krempa
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

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 2/2] virDomainLockManagerAddImage: Recursively lock backing chain

2015-09-08 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
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

[libvirt] [PATCH 2/2] virDomainLockManagerAddImage: Recursively lock backing chain

2015-09-08 Thread Michal Privoznik
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