From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=51312 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OnsVK-0004bD-BW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:21:27 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OnsVJ-00089r-Ai for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:21:26 -0400 Received: from mail-vw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.212.45]:40796) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OnsVJ-00089l-6S for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:21:25 -0400 Received: by vws19 with SMTP id 19so418929vws.4 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 05:21:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4C73AFBA.6000002@redhat.com> References: <1282646430-5777-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> <4C73AFBA.6000002@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:21:23 +0100 Message-ID: From: Stefan Hajnoczi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: avi@redhat.com, mjt@tls.msk.ru, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, hch@lst.de On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 24.08.2010 13:02, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi: >> QEMU 0.12.5 has qcow2 sync metadata writes in commit >> 37060c28e522843fbf6f7e59af745dfcb05b132c. =A0Was 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. Stefan