Il 16/10/2012 10:24, Kevin Wolf ha scritto:
>> > The idea was that block-job-cancel will still leave the target in a
>> > consistent state if executed during the second phase. Otherwise it is
>> > impossible to take a consistent snapshot and keep running on the first
>> > image.
> Yes, I noticed t
Am 16.10.2012 08:36, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> Il 15/10/2012 18:57, Kevin Wolf ha scritto:
>> Am 26.09.2012 17:56, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>>> +
>>> +/* We're out of the streaming phase. From now on, if the job
>>> + * is cancelled we will actually complete all pending I/O an
Il 15/10/2012 18:57, Kevin Wolf ha scritto:
> Am 26.09.2012 17:56, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>> This patch adds the implementation of a new job that mirrors a disk to
>> a new image while letting the guest continue using the old image.
>> The target is treated as a "black box" and data is copied from
Am 26.09.2012 17:56, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> This patch adds the implementation of a new job that mirrors a disk to
> a new image while letting the guest continue using the old image.
> The target is treated as a "black box" and data is copied from the
> source to the target in the background. Th
This patch adds the implementation of a new job that mirrors a disk to
a new image while letting the guest continue using the old image.
The target is treated as a "black box" and data is copied from the
source to the target in the background. This can be used for several
purposes, including stora
