From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=54309 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ontbm-0002IL-FQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:32:11 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1Ontbl-0001Oz-8g
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:32:10 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:29181)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1Ontbl-0001Oi-1J
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:32:09 -0400
Message-ID: <4C73C9CF.7090800@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 16:31:59 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1282646430-5777-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com>
	<4C73C2BF.8050300@codemonkey.ws> <4C73C622.7080808@redhat.com>
	<4C73C926.3010901@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <4C73C926.3010901@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [RFC][STABLE 0.13] Revert "qcow2: Use
 bdrv_(p)write_sync for metadata writes"
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, stefanha@gmail.com, mjt@tls.msk.ru, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, hch@lst.de

  On 08/24/2010 04:29 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
> I'm not sure this patch is needed in the first place.
>
> If you have a sequence of operations like:
>
> 0) receive guest write request Z
> 1) submit write A
> 2) write A completes
> 3) submit write B
> 4) write B completes
> 5) report guest write Z complete
>
> You're adding a:
>
> 4.5) sync write B
>
> Which is ultimately unnecessary if what you care about is avoiding 
> reordering of step (2) and (4).  When a write() request completes, 
> you're guaranteed that a subsequent read() request will return the 
> written data.  That's always true.  If I could do a write(A) followed 
> by a write(B) and then read()=A, no software would actually function 
> correctly.
>
> It's important to make sure that you don't get image corruption if (2) 
> happens but not (4).  But I think that's okay in qcow2 today.

It's about metadata writes.  If an operation changes metadata, we must 
sync it to disk before writing any data or other metadata which depends 
on it, regardless of any promises to the guest.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function