From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42354)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <stefanha@redhat.com>) id 1VkzKy-0002qj-4e
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:48:46 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <stefanha@redhat.com>) id 1VkzKt-00005w-IJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:48:40 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35480)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <stefanha@redhat.com>) id 1VkzKt-00005r-9e
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:48:35 -0500
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:48:29 +0100
From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20131125164829.GB32731@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com>
References: <1385097894-1380-1-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com>
	<20131122165834.GE3232@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com>
	<20131125092944.GB3009@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20131125092944.GB3009@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 0/7] Drop in_use from BlockDriverState
 and enable point-in-time snapshot exporting over NBD
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/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: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Cc: Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>, hbrock@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, rjones@redhat.com, imain@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:29:44AM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 22.11.2013 um 17:58 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben:
> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 01:24:47PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > Interesting implementation, it looks pretty good.  I'll need to review
> > it a second time to track all the operation block/unblocks.  It wasn't
> > immediately clear to me whether these patches will restrict something
> > that used to work.
> 
> We still have a lot of time for 1.8, so I think we can be radical here:
> If something doesn't have a test case and we don't catch it during the
> normal review, then let's just break it. Someone will find it and then
> we'll get a test case for it, so that it doesn't happen again.

Don't hold it up on my account, but let's still review properly.

Stefan