From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46418) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZEU2q-0000lM-TV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 12 Jul 2015 23:04:41 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZEU2n-000741-Lv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 12 Jul 2015 23:04:40 -0400 Received: from [59.151.112.132] (port=39588 helo=heian.cn.fujitsu.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZEU2n-0005uc-0v for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 12 Jul 2015 23:04:37 -0400 Message-ID: <55A32571.9020908@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:41:53 +0800 From: Wen Congyang MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <558BA5CE.80507@cn.fujitsu.com> <20150701083918.GB13991@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> <5593A9A4.7010305@cn.fujitsu.com> <20150702144829.GC950@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20150702144829.GC950@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] more check for replaced node List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: Jeff Cody , Fam Zheng , qemu-devl On 07/02/2015 10:48 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 04:49:40PM +0800, Wen Congyang wrote: >> On 07/01/2015 04:39 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 02:55:10PM +0800, Wen Congyang wrote: >>>> Signed-off-by: Wen Congyang >>>> --- >>>> block.c | 5 +++-- >>>> block/mirror.c | 3 ++- >>>> blockdev.c | 2 +- >>>> include/block/block.h | 3 ++- >>>> 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>> >>> This patch is missing a commit description. What is the justification >>> for this change? >> >> Sorry, I forgot to add commit messages.. >> >> Without this patch, the replace node can be any node, and it can be >> top BDS with BB, or another quorum's child. With this patch, the replace node >> must be this quorum's child. > > I think the point of the replace operation was to swap a quorum child > with a new drive. It sounds like this patch will break that use case? > > The idea was that a failed child needs to be replaced. The user adds a > new -drive and then uses the mirror+replace to include it into the > quorum. I think the new child is not be part of the quorum BDS graph > until replacement occurs. bs/s->common.bs is quorum, and to_replace is the broken child. The new child is target_bs. With this patch, we just check if the broken child is part of the quorum BDS. Do I misunderstand something? Thanks Wen Congyang > > Stefan >