From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55520)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <famz@redhat.com>) id 1Z7vYj-0000jJ-Me
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 21:02:30 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <famz@redhat.com>) id 1Z7vYi-0004dc-Kg
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 21:02:29 -0400
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 09:02:19 +0800
From: Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20150625010219.GC17695@ad.nay.redhat.com>
References: <1433742974-20128-1-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com>
	<20150608130242.GE1961@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com>
	<20150611082911.GB22459@ad.nay.redhat.com>
	<20150624090831.GC22582@ad.nay.redhat.com>
	<558AE25D.4010508@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <558AE25D.4010508@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-stable] [PATCH v7 0/8] block: Mirror
	discarded sectors
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, qemu-block@nongnu.org, jsnow@redhat.com, Jeff Cody <jcody@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-stable@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>, wangxiaolong@ucloud.cn

On Wed, 06/24 19:01, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
> 
> On 24/06/2015 11:08, Fam Zheng wrote:
> >> Stefan,
> >>
> >> The only controversial patches are the qmp/drive-mirror ones (1-3), while
> >> patches 4-8 are still useful on their own: they fix the mentioned crash and
> >> improve iotests.
> >>
> >> Shall we merge the second half (of course none of them depend on 1-3) now that
> >> softfreeze is approaching?
> > 
> > Stefan, would you consider applying patches 4-8?
> 
> Actually why not apply all of them?  Even if blockdev-mirror is a
> superior interface in the long run, the current behavior of drive-mirror
> can cause images to balloon up to the full size, which is bad.
> Extending drive-mirror is okay IMHO for 2.4.
> 

Before we do that, Andrey Korolyov has reported a hang issue with unmap=true,
I'll take a look at it today.

Fam