qemu-devel.nongnu.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com>,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] scsi: add block job opblockers for scsi-block
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 15:48:24 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180212144824.GI5103@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3d6031b0-7d75-c3ab-e466-ce3d87d630df@redhat.com>

Am 12.02.2018 um 15:32 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
> On 12/02/2018 15:30, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >>> We shouldn't be adding new instances of BLOCK_OP_* at all. I couldn't
> >>> find the time yet to remove the existing ones, but any new protections
> >>> should be using the permission system.
> >> I agree.  But does this include not fixing bugs wherever clients are
> >> using the old op blockers?
> > I'm not saying that we shouldn't fix the bug, just that we should fix it
> > properly with the best infrastructure we have.
> > 
> > The old op blockers are "fixing" the problem at the symptom level, and
> > you have to check for each high-level operation if it does something
> > problematic internally. You have to repeat this analysis every time you
> > add a new operation or modifiy an existing one (which noone ever does).
> > The risk that this breaks sooner or later is pretty high.
> > 
> > The new permission system, on the other hand, directly addresses the
> > root cause, and any new feature that uses dirty bitmaps will then
> > automatically get the protection, too.
> > 
> > So in fact, I would say that the bug isn't really fixed (but at best
> > papered over) until we add a proper fix on the permission level.
> 
> Okay, we are in agreement about this and you expressed very well why I
> (at the gut feeling level) didn't like the old op blockers.  But you
> bypassed the real question, which is: should I send a pull request for
> these two patches or not? :)

I didn't spell it out that explicitly, but this is essentially a NACK.
I'd very much prefer if you could replace it with the proper solution.
Of course, we can always make exceptions when there is a good reason,
but with 2.12 still two months away, I doubt we have one.

Kevin

  reply	other threads:[~2018-02-12 14:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-02-07 16:36 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/2] scsi: add block job opblockers for scsi-block Paolo Bonzini
2018-02-07 16:36 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] scsi: add unrealize method for SCSI devices Paolo Bonzini
2018-02-08  1:35   ` Fam Zheng
2018-02-07 16:36 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] scsi: add block job opblockers for scsi-block Paolo Bonzini
2018-02-08  1:35   ` Fam Zheng
2018-02-08 10:42     ` Paolo Bonzini
2018-02-12 13:52       ` Kevin Wolf
2018-02-12 14:00         ` Paolo Bonzini
2018-02-12 14:30           ` Kevin Wolf
2018-02-12 14:32             ` Paolo Bonzini
2018-02-12 14:48               ` Kevin Wolf [this message]
2018-02-12 14:50                 ` Paolo Bonzini
2018-03-12 11:10                   ` [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] " Paolo Bonzini
2018-03-12 11:58                     ` Kevin Wolf
2018-04-05 11:59                       ` Paolo Bonzini
2018-04-05 12:43                         ` Kevin Wolf

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180212144824.GI5103@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=kwolf@redhat.com \
    --cc=famz@redhat.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=qemu-block@nongnu.org \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).