From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LYlb5-0001b5-5Y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 13:20:07 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LYlb3-0001an-Q2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 13:20:06 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37000 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LYlb3-0001ak-IO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 13:20:05 -0500 Received: from yx-out-1718.google.com ([74.125.44.154]:62864) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LYlb3-0005Y5-6b for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 13:20:05 -0500 Received: by yx-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 4so1235201yxp.82 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 10:20:04 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <49985CB7.4090803@codemonkey.ws> Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 12:19:35 -0600 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Revert block-qcow2.c to kvm-72 version due to corruption reports References: <4988AD96.6090308@codemonkey.ws> <20090213084023.GA1020@kos.to> <20090213163043.GJ18471@shareable.org> <4995A723.9010208@codemonkey.ws> <20090213190419.GB20328@shareable.org> <4997502D.1080401@codemonkey.ws> <20090215020126.GA9281@shareable.org> <20090215154207.GA24821@shareable.org> In-Reply-To: <20090215154207.GA24821@shareable.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Jamie Lokier wrote: > Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Jamie Lokier wrote: >> >>> Have done, did you read the other thread? >>> >> Yes, but your patch confused me (which is admittedly not hard). >> >> >>>> It's QEMU SVN delta 5005-5006, copied below. >>>> >> So why such an aggressive revert? Why not just revert the problematic >> changesets? >> > > Because most of the following changes look too dependent on it. > Too dependent on the introduced functionality or too dependent to make porting trivial? My impression upon looking was that it's the later, not the former. If that is the case, then someone needs to do the work of properly reverting. > I did keep a couple of changes which are trivially independent since > that one - default to "cache=writeback" and eliminating #define > offsetof. > > You have a point that QEMU SVN deltas up to 5005 don't need to be > reverted. Reason for that: I simply don't have time to trim the patch > down to its bare essentials quickly, and being a corruption bug, it > should be dealt with quickly. This one seems to work; feel free to > improve it by reverting less, or waiting a long time for me to do so :-) > But many of the changes since 5005 were also corruption fixes. And let's be clear, your data is *not* safe with qcow2. So I don't consider this to be a show stopping issue. Regards, Anthony Liguori > -- Jamie > > >