On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 04:10:12PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 23.12.2015 um 09:33 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben:
> > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 02:15:38PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > Another problem is that the backup block job and other operations that
> > require a single command today
Am 23.12.2015 um 09:33 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 02:15:38PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > What should happen when the user asks for a mutation at a place where we
> > have implicit filter(s)?
>
> Please suspend your disbelief for a second:
>
> In principle
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 06:15:20PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Fri, 12/18 14:15, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> In that theory, all other block job types, mirror/stream/commit, fit into a
> "pull" model, which follows a specified dirty bitmap and copies data from a
> specified src BDS. In this pull
On Mon, 01/04 13:16, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 06:15:20PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > On Fri, 12/18 14:15, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > In that theory, all other block job types, mirror/stream/commit, fit into a
> > "pull" model, which follows a specified dirty bitmap and
On Fri, 12/18 14:15, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> First, let's examine how such a chain could look like. If we read the
> current code correctly, it behaves as if we had a chain
>
> BB
> |
> throttle
> |
> detect-zero
> |
> copy-on-read
>
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 02:15:38PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> What should happen when the user asks for a mutation at a place where we
> have implicit filter(s)?
Please suspend your disbelief for a second:
In principle it's simplest not having implicit filters. The client
needs to set up
Kevin, Max and I used an opportunity to meet and discuss block layer
matters. We examined two topics in some depth: BlockBackend, and block
filters and dynamic reconfiguration.
Not nearly enough people to call it a block summit. But the local
dialect is known for its use of diminutives, and
