From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50608 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OnsSI-0002gC-8X for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:18:19 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OnsSG-0007bf-Mi for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:18:18 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:65297) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OnsSG-0007bY-Eo for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:18:16 -0400 Message-ID: <4C73B87D.40303@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:18:05 +0300 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [RFC][STABLE 0.13] Revert "qcow2: Use bdrv_(p)write_sync for metadata writes" References: <1282646430-5777-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> <4C73AFBA.6000002@redhat.com> <4C73B364.1090900@suse.de> <4C73B6CE.4070205@redhat.com> <4C73B74B.5030105@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <4C73B74B.5030105@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alexander Graf Cc: Kevin Wolf , Stefan Hajnoczi , mjt@tls.msk.ru, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, hch@lst.de On 08/24/2010 03:12 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > >> Well, safety is not boolean. Considering to make it mostly safe instead >> of completely safe because of the performance doesn't mean that we >> should make it completely unsafe. >> > What is safety then? A vague feeling of "oh today is monday so my data > is safe, but on tuesday I always lose my image data"? Either we promise > to keep data safe or we don't. There is no in between. > Do you drive a car? Though in general I agree we shouldn't compromise on data integrity. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function