From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55231) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cyjWJ-0000lW-PA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:31:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cyjWI-000811-UY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:31:03 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 20:30:50 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20170413183050.GH5095@noname.redhat.com> References: <1492104214-29994-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> <1492104214-29994-2-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> <20170413175444.GG5095@noname.redhat.com> <35c0f944-0303-5d86-7bf3-93940bd886e5@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tjCHc7DPkfUGtrlw" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <35c0f944-0303-5d86-7bf3-93940bd886e5@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/3] migration: Call blk_resume_after_migration() for postcopy List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: qemu-block@nongnu.org, mreitz@redhat.com, quintela@redhat.com, dgilbert@redhat.com, stefanha@redhat.com, lvivier@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org --tjCHc7DPkfUGtrlw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am 13.04.2017 um 20:03 hat Eric Blake geschrieben: > On 04/13/2017 12:54 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > Am 13.04.2017 um 19:39 hat Eric Blake geschrieben: > >> On 04/13/2017 12:23 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > >>> Commit d35ff5e6 ('block: Ignore guest dev permissions during incoming > >>> migration') added blk_resume_after_migration() to the precopy migrati= on > >>> path, but neglected to add it to the duplicated code that is used for > >>> postcopy migration. This means that the guest device doesn't request = the > >>> necessary permissions, which ultimately led to failing assertions. > >>> > >>> Add the missing blk_resume_after_migration() to the postcopy path. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf > >>> --- > >>> migration/savevm.c | 8 ++++++++ > >>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake > >> > >> Are we targetting this for 2.9-rc5, or is it 2.10 material? > >=20 > > At this point, I think it's clearly 2.10. >=20 > Okay. Restating, to make sure I got your reasoning: the removed > assertions of commit e3e0003 imply that 2.9 is not regressing in > behavior, and at this point the worst the code can do without this patch > applied is behave like it's done previously; therefore this patch is not > fixing an observable 2.9 behavior and therefore not worth holding up the > release. Right, basically the new op blockers become ineffective for guest devices after postcopy migration. > But for 2.10, it's absolutely essential, as we have another patch > pending to revert e3e0003 at which point we have a behavior break > without this patch. Correct. Kevin --tjCHc7DPkfUGtrlw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJY78PaAAoJEH8JsnLIjy/W728P/1nZb5jwN3w+JSBpNmIDExPQ 2lK5O03xPLhcbMdoYIuRsecgZcPQbhvo+02xN7FrJOLwvd26ckFkw1okdHo/6CHN 9MjrGxdwKZEGWQ3XvL+SpoRHNvrA5BG1u16P18zBFCZZitus1J4jAA1C+ZAwawRh 3JUMO/eCnkCksmiaAxqN4wYOKYkKVa6CWOT0mAWdIsuerW3dYqpLUDa9CellAsXG mOo0H0x5AGq7QZRoCTLaX4dc7xmVU7CuJkIahjgvhLW3pj6nK8aPBRxjyH2xy4vl YwznC4KnBptVlVP3IMF763LpJdi3B3fchN8ZshJGt6c8aYVNbFG6JklkaLH9Jmy2 PkGJnUTh842Vsfy9dci5ssdBbn+wL+Vy7tbgzRRAU6G7O+kObeEZZkPy2dDH1GQS yEerpkEKw5+CkRFALysJX7JzvF+7Dfat+L/6QyMt+FGCD+f9NLT6nTjD+JoDsdxz iPYEJNH+VS+oorfU7GYr/NUfosdGB2I8EIl8fCRE7n3ZniOuShj4NJjp42kOk+5I 4cTjvnn2bscUNxL8ZJ18mYesoS0sYPMlYmbcPDygnh9gT5HoOYf+y+H9ZPU3H8vk JT+AunkqI/ik2h3ElIOpiqaEttXjf2cSzKTZjFBtK6hqQ6iY5GBN93++8dzucvXl ZedTmkeWraTKzQ5gtHqy =lT3q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --tjCHc7DPkfUGtrlw--