From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93721C433DB for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:34:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D547364ED3 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:34:01 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D547364ED3 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:52672 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lEtMe-0004Sk-Sc for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 07:34:00 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37242) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lEtLv-0003h7-Ci for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 07:33:15 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([63.128.21.124]:36318) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lEtLr-0004bx-VZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 07:33:15 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1614169991; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=+M0XHHHcaACiVMg/kk2CGXVy8vn4RqplZlEhRgtnFV8=; b=ivrX9op8OxFGcdKSsrArtuYs7dchGVpv3UXWIEfHIaQX8NoGqRUgV0OxJURdDBpVQxxJE5 h9OuCNWijyhZK6Dmdy29+7yI+79Yn4GnglQS47XcNCwj15AschDbEYBf8Wc8g2GAnoubK4 sPZZO2rOSm+v4CQODAFP8tX9yxGLhjw= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-492-_tdy0lCDP2qZaoHdknkudg-1; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 07:33:09 -0500 X-MC-Unique: _tdy0lCDP2qZaoHdknkudg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15BC4107ACF5; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:33:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merkur.fritz.box (ovpn-114-142.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.114.142]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF18410016F0; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:33:06 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 13:33:05 +0100 From: Kevin Wolf To: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] block: Support multiple reopening with x-blockdev-reopen Message-ID: <20210224123305.GA11025@merkur.fritz.box> References: <145882bca942bb629bce2b1f5546fe0946ccdfcd.1612809837.git.berto@igalia.com> <06587add-3242-6041-6a76-e2fd41e8c040@virtuozzo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <06587add-3242-6041-6a76-e2fd41e8c040@virtuozzo.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=kwolf@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Received-SPF: pass client-ip=63.128.21.124; envelope-from=kwolf@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Alberto Garcia , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org, Max Reitz Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Am 09.02.2021 um 09:03 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben: > 08.02.2021 21:44, Alberto Garcia wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Alberto Garcia > > --- > > qapi/block-core.json | 2 +- > > include/block/block.h | 1 + > > block.c | 16 +++++-- > > blockdev.c | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++----------------- > > tests/qemu-iotests/155 | 9 ++-- > > tests/qemu-iotests/165 | 4 +- > > tests/qemu-iotests/245 | 27 +++++++----- > > tests/qemu-iotests/248 | 2 +- > > tests/qemu-iotests/248.out | 2 +- > > tests/qemu-iotests/298 | 4 +- > > 10 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/qapi/block-core.json b/qapi/block-core.json > > index c0e7c23331..b9fcf20a81 100644 > > --- a/qapi/block-core.json > > +++ b/qapi/block-core.json > > @@ -4177,7 +4177,7 @@ > > # Since: 4.0 > > ## > > { 'command': 'x-blockdev-reopen', > > - 'data': 'BlockdevOptions', 'boxed': true } > > + 'data': { 'options': ['BlockdevOptions'] } } > > Do we also want to drop x- prefix? libvirt really wants to have a stable blockdev-reopen interface in 6.0 because enabling the incremental backup code depends on this (they just toggle the readonly flag if I understand correctly, so most of the work we're currently doing isn't even relevant at this moment for libvirt). Given that the soft freeze is coming closer (March 16), I wonder if we should just make this API change and declare the interface stable. We can then make Vladimir's fixes and the file reopening on top of it - if it's in time for 6.0, that would be good, but if not we could move it to 6.1 without impacting libvirt. I think we're reasonable confident that the QAPI interfaces are right, even if maybe not that all aspects of the implementation are right yet. What do you think? Kevin