From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=40413 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OnsXf-0005yo-Df
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:23:52 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <mjt@tls.msk.ru>) id 1OnsXe-00008c-9c
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:23:51 -0400
Received: from isrv.corpit.ru ([86.62.121.231]:51610)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <mjt@tls.msk.ru>) id 1OnsXe-00008U-2k
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:23:50 -0400
Message-ID: <4C73B9D4.90107@msgid.tls.msk.ru>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 16:23:48 +0400
From: Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1282646430-5777-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com>	<AANLkTimYQHv15jprqpa8ubTQMR=bnisDB4SposC07tZw@mail.gmail.com>	<4C73AFBA.6000002@redhat.com>
	<AANLkTin-aDNnyDQvg0zkANupD5rGY3pFTy7oCutDfHSO@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin-aDNnyDQvg0zkANupD5rGY3pFTy7oCutDfHSO@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [RFC][STABLE 0.13] Revert "qcow2: Use
 bdrv_(p)write_sync for metadata writes"
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/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: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, avi@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, hch@lst.de

24.08.2010 16:21, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Am 24.08.2010 13:02, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
>>> QEMU 0.12.5 has qcow2 sync metadata writes in commit
>>> 37060c28e522843fbf6f7e59af745dfcb05b132c.  Was the performance
>>> regression spotted on 0.12.5 or 0.13?
>>
>> Both. You mean we should consider a 0.12.6 if we decide to revert? I
>> think so far 0.12.5 was planned to be last 0.12.x release.
> 
> Yes, especially if distros will revert the patches manually without an
> upstream release.  I can see arguments for either way though.

Note that for 0.12 there's no other option than to revert the
whole thing.  Because, well, there's no "cache=unsafe" there,
not to say about it being the default.  And quemu-kvm breaks
the user's systems in the middle of stable series (by "breaks"
I mean making their working guests unusable).

/mjt