From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59916) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YlSxJ-0001Pe-TY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 22:03:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YlSxI-0005iy-VR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 22:03:01 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:01:49 +0800 From: Fam Zheng Message-ID: <20150424020149.GL2723@ad.nay.redhat.com> References: <20150423101716.GF5289@noname.redhat.com> <5538CA77.4030708@redhat.com> <20150423104045.GG5289@noname.redhat.com> <5538CD0F.1060100@redhat.com> <20150423113631.GH5289@noname.redhat.com> <5538DD52.3020101@redhat.com> <20150423120533.GF2177@work-vm> <5538E174.9020201@redhat.com> <20150423121953.GG2177@work-vm> <5538E459.5030801@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5538E459.5030801@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH COLO v3 01/14] docs: block replication's description List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Kevin Wolf , Yang Hongyang , qemu block , armbru@redhat.com, jcody@redhat.com, Jiang Yunhong , Dong Eddie , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , qemu devel , zhanghailiang , Gonglei , Stefan Hajnoczi , Max Reitz , Lai Jiangshan On Thu, 04/23 14:23, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 23/04/2015 14:19, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > >> > So that means the bdrv_start_replication and bdrv_stop_replication > >> > callbacks are more or less redundant, at least on the primary? > >> > > >> > In fact, who calls them? Certainly nothing in this patch set... > >> > :) > > In the main colo set (I'm looking at the February version) there > > are calls to them, the 'stop_replication' is called at failover time. > > > > Here is I think the later version: > > http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-03/msg05391.html > > I think the primary shouldn't do any I/O after failover (and the > secondary should close the NBD server) so it is probably okay to ignore > the removal for now. Inserting the filter dynamically is probably > needed though. Or maybe just enabling/disabling? Fam