During the review of a fix for a concurrency issue in blklogwrites,
it was found that the driver needs an additional fix when enabling
multiqueue, which is a new feature introduced in QEMU 9.0, as the
driver state may be read and written by multiple threads at the same
time, which was not the case
Hi Vladimir,
hope I didn't miss a newer version of this series. I'm currently
evaluating fleecing backup for Proxmox downstream, so I pulled in this
series and wanted to let you know about two issues I encountered while
testing. We are still based on 8.1, but if I'm not mistaken, they are
still re
On 1/11/24 16:06, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 10.01.2024 um 20:50 hat Ari Sundholm geschrieben:
During the review of a fix for a concurrency issue in blklogwrites,
it was found that the driver needs an additional fix when enabling
multiqueue, which is a new feature introduced in QEMU 9.0, as the
driver
Am 10.01.2024 um 20:50 hat Ari Sundholm geschrieben:
> During the review of a fix for a concurrency issue in blklogwrites,
> it was found that the driver needs an additional fix when enabling
> multiqueue, which is a new feature introduced in QEMU 9.0, as the
> driver state may be read and written
On 12/11/23 13:27, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> On 12/11/23 11:55, Andrey Drobyshev wrote:
>> In case we're truncating an image opened with O_DIRECT, we might get
>> -EINVAL on write with unaligned buffer. In particular, when running
>> iotests/298 with '-nocache' we get:
>>
>> qemu-io: Failed to resiz
On 12/11/23 15:32, Andrey Drobyshev wrote:
> There're tests whose logic implies running without O_DIRECT set,
> otherwise they fail when running iotests in '-nocache' mode. For these
> tests let's add _require_no_o_direct() helper which can be put in the
> preabmle and which makes sure '-nocache'
During the review of a fix for a concurrency issue in blklogwrites,
it was found that the driver needs an additional fix when enabling
multiqueue, which is a new feature introduced in QEMU 9.0, as the
driver state may be read and written by multiple threads at the same
time, which was not the case
Kevin Wolf writes:
> Commit ff32bb53 tried to get minimal struct support into the string
> output visitor by just making it return "". Unfortunately, it
> forgot that the caller will still make more visitor calls for the
> content of the struct.
>
> If the struct is contained in a list, such as I