From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:42566) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S23mk-00021j-CT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:50:56 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S23mf-0005gE-T9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:50:50 -0500 Received: from mx3-phx2.redhat.com ([209.132.183.24]:35002) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S23mf-0005g6-LJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:50:45 -0500 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:50:43 -0500 (EST) From: Federico Simoncelli Message-ID: <1a226638-a248-4fbf-9269-e39231407a13@zmail16.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4F4BB277.6050608@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] drive transactions (was Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] Add the blockdev-reopen and blockdev-migrate commands) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, Jeff Cody , mtosatti@redhat.com, armbru@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Paolo Bonzini , Luiz Capitulino ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Anthony Liguori" > To: "Federico Simoncelli" > Cc: "Paolo Bonzini" , kwolf@redhat.com, armbru@redhat.com, "Jeff Cody" , > mtosatti@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Luiz Capitulino" > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 5:42:31 PM > Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] drive transactions (was Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] Add the blockdev-reopen and blockdev-migrate > commands) > > On 02/27/2012 10:33 AM, Federico Simoncelli wrote: > > I'm all for the modularity of the commands (I suggested it since > > the beginning), > > but all this infrastructure goes way beyond what I'd need for oVirt > > now. > > > > When I submitted my patches we knew that my work wasn't the > > definitive solution > > (eg: the future implementation of -blockdev). So I'd suggest to try > > and settle > > with something that is good enough and that is not preventing a > > future improvement. > > > > What about having a (temporary) flag in drive-mirror to accept also > > a new-image-file > > until we will have the optimal solution? > > Unless there are extenuating circumstances (like the absence of core > infrastructure in QEMU), then we should not add commands that we know > are not > the right command. So are you in favor or against my suggestion? It looks like this is exactly the case where the core infrastructure (transactions) is missing. -- Federico