On Mon, 05/21 16:58, Fam Zheng wrote:
> Coverity doesn't like the tests under fail label (report CID 1385847).
> Reset the fields so the clean up order is more apparent.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng
Queued, thanks.
Fam
Am 24.05.2018 um 00:24 hat John Snow geschrieben:
>
>
> On 05/18/2018 09:20 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > +job->auto_finalize = !(flags & JOB_MANUAL_FINALIZE);
> > +job->auto_dismiss = !(flags & JOB_MANUAL_DISMISS);
>
> Job API might be a good chance to say "No, this is the default behavior
Am 24.05.2018 um 01:18 hat John Snow geschrieben:
> > diff --git a/include/qemu/job.h b/include/qemu/job.h
> > index 3e817beee9..2648c74281 100644
> > --- a/include/qemu/job.h
> > +++ b/include/qemu/job.h
> > @@ -97,6 +97,12 @@ typedef struct Job {
> > */
> > bool cancelled;
> >
> > +
On Wed, 05/23 13:28, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 05/22/2018 10:04 PM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > We don't verify the request range against s->size in the I/O callbacks
> > except for raw_co_pwritev. This is wrong (especially for
> > raw_co_pwrite_zeroes and raw_co_pdiscard), so fix them.
>
> I'd also mention
Am 24.05.2018 um 01:42 hat John Snow geschrieben:
> On 05/18/2018 09:21 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Instead of having a 'bool ready' in BlockJob, add a function that
> > derives its value from the job status.
> >
> > At the same time, this fixes the behaviour to match what the QAPI
> > documentation
Am 24.05.2018 um 02:02 hat John Snow geschrieben:
>
>
> On 05/18/2018 09:21 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > This adds a QMP event that is emitted whenever a job transitions from
> > one status to another.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf
>
> That's a lot of events, and a lot are redundant to what w
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 05:33:22PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 09:18:17PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
[...]
(Just catching up with this thread.)
[...]
> > > I have very specific goal here: the goal is to make it less
> > > painful to users when OpenStack+libvirt
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 06:09:56PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> The closest to a cross-hypervisor standard is OVF which can store
> metadata about required hardware for a VM. I'm pretty sure it does
> not have the concept of machine types, but maybe it has a way for
> people to define metadat
I read the whole thread and the fundamental problem is that you're
mixing layers. Let qcow2 be a disk image format, and let management
layers deal with metadata and how to run qemu.
What's going to happen when you have (eg) an OVA file containing qcow2
files, and the qcow2 files all have differen
On 23 May 2018 at 14:11, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> The following changes since commit 4f50c1673a89b07f376ce5c42d22d79a79cd466d:
>
> Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/ehabkost/tags/x86-next-pull-request'
> into staging (2018-05-22 09:43:58 +0100)
>
> are available in the git repository at:
>
> g
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 06:25:46PM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> This means that the test executed a write at LBA 0x94fa and, after
> confirming that the write was completed, issue 2 reads in the same LBA to
> assert the written contents and found out a mismatch.
Have you confirmed this
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:32:51PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> There is however a seed of a good idea in the thread:
>
> > I don't think QEMU needs to use this information automatically,
> > necessarily. I think the first step is to simply make QEMU save
> > this information in the disk im
Am 24.05.2018 um 16:56 hat Michael S. Tsirkin geschrieben:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:32:51PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > There is however a seed of a good idea in the thread:
> >
> > > I don't think QEMU needs to use this information automatically,
> > > necessarily. I think the first
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 05:08:17PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 24.05.2018 um 16:56 hat Michael S. Tsirkin geschrieben:
> > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:32:51PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > There is however a seed of a good idea in the thread:
> > >
> > > > I don't think QEMU needs to use
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 05:08:17PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 24.05.2018 um 16:56 hat Michael S. Tsirkin geschrieben:
> > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:32:51PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > There is however a seed of a good idea in the thread:
> > >
> > > > I don't think QEMU needs to use
"Richard W.M. Jones" writes:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 05:08:17PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Am 24.05.2018 um 16:56 hat Michael S. Tsirkin geschrieben:
>> > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:32:51PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> > > There is however a seed of a good idea in the thread:
>> > >
>>
On 21/05/2018 08:35, Fam Zheng wrote:
> Coverity doesn't like the tests under fail label (report CID 1385847).
> Reset the fields so the clean up order is more apparent.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng
> ---
> block/nvme.c | 7 +++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/block/nvme.
On 05/24/2018 04:30 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 24.05.2018 um 01:42 hat John Snow geschrieben:
>> On 05/18/2018 09:21 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> Instead of having a 'bool ready' in BlockJob, add a function that
>>> derives its value from the job status.
>>>
>>> At the same time, this fixes the beha
On 05/24/2018 04:36 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 24.05.2018 um 02:02 hat John Snow geschrieben:
>>
>>
>> On 05/18/2018 09:21 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> This adds a QMP event that is emitted whenever a job transitions from
>>> one status to another.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf
>>
>> That's a l
On 05/24/2018 04:24 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 24.05.2018 um 01:18 hat John Snow geschrieben:
>>> diff --git a/include/qemu/job.h b/include/qemu/job.h
>>> index 3e817beee9..2648c74281 100644
>>> --- a/include/qemu/job.h
>>> +++ b/include/qemu/job.h
>>> @@ -97,6 +97,12 @@ typedef struct Job {
>>>
On 05/24/2018 04:17 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 24.05.2018 um 00:24 hat John Snow geschrieben:
>>
>>
>> On 05/18/2018 09:20 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> +job->auto_finalize = !(flags & JOB_MANUAL_FINALIZE);
>>> +job->auto_dismiss = !(flags & JOB_MANUAL_DISMISS);
>>
>> Job API might be a good
On 05/24/2018 12:36 PM, John Snow wrote:
On 05/18/2018 09:21 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
This adds a QMP event that is emitted whenever a job transitions from
one status to another.
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf
The question that I was asking myself was just whether I'd literally
duplicate the exis
On 05/24/2018 02:22 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 05/24/2018 12:36 PM, John Snow wrote:
>
On 05/18/2018 09:21 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> This adds a QMP event that is emitted whenever a job transitions from
> one status to another.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf
>
>>>
>>> The que
On 05/24/2018 11:04 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 06:25:46PM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
This means that the test executed a write at LBA 0x94fa and, after
confirming that the write was completed, issue 2 reads in the same LBA to
assert the written contents and
On Thu, 05/24 19:16, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 21/05/2018 08:35, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > Coverity doesn't like the tests under fail label (report CID 1385847).
> > Reset the fields so the clean up order is more apparent.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng
> > ---
> > block/nvme.c | 7 +++
> > 1 f
Fam Zheng writes:
> On Thu, 05/24 19:16, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 21/05/2018 08:35, Fam Zheng wrote:
>> > Coverity doesn't like the tests under fail label (report CID 1385847).
>> > Reset the fields so the clean up order is more apparent.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng
>> > ---
>> > bloc
On Fri, 05/25 07:47, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Fam Zheng writes:
>
> > On Thu, 05/24 19:16, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> On 21/05/2018 08:35, Fam Zheng wrote:
> >> > Coverity doesn't like the tests under fail label (report CID 1385847).
> >> > Reset the fields so the clean up order is more apparent
27 matches
Mail list logo
