From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:40653) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QogJ7-0006Ns-3f for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:36:42 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QogJ6-0001Mp-14 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:36:41 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:25398) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QogJ5-0001ME-P1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:36:39 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 15:36:34 -0300 From: Luiz Capitulino Message-ID: <20110803153634.6fbf2c13@doriath> In-Reply-To: <20110803182630.GA9899@lst.de> References: <1312384765-721-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com> <20110803163131.GA8411@lst.de> <20110803151138.28850d1c@doriath> <20110803182630.GA9899@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/5]: QMP: Proper thin provisioning support List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, aliguori@us.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, armbru@redhat.com On Wed, 3 Aug 2011 20:26:30 +0200 Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 03:11:38PM -0300, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > > > It's already possible for QMP clients to implement this feature by using > > > > the BLOCK_IO_ERROR event. However, the event can be missed. When this > > > > happens QMP clients need a way to query if any block device has hit a > > > > no space condition. > > > > > > We have a mode where we stop the VM when it hits ENOSPC, and that is > > > the only reliably way to handle it. > > > > This series just complements that mode by allowing a mngt application > > to query which device triggered the ENOSPC. Well, that's my intention :) > > Oh, so you only plan to use the QMP command post-mortem? That makes a lot > more sense. Yes. Calling it 'proper thin provisioning support' was too ambitious from my part. > But relying on that fact should also help to simplify the > implementation and make it more robust by storing the error code from > the same place that we stop them VM. Yes, I think I'll do that.