From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=59386 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P5gh5-0007f0-5S for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:23:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P5gh3-0004RB-Hd for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:23:10 -0400 Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.145]:53553) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P5gh3-0004NW-FN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:23:09 -0400 Received: from d01relay06.pok.ibm.com (d01relay06.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.116]) by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o9CF2Y5N028540 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:02:34 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay06.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id o9CFMk1u1798222 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:22:46 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id o9CFMixt003780 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:22:45 -0400 Message-ID: <4CB47D38.3060602@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:22:32 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1286552914-27014-1-git-send-email-stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1286552914-27014-7-git-send-email-stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4CB479D2.7030901@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4CB479D2.7030901@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] qed: Read/write support List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: Anthony Liguori , Avi Kivity , Christoph Hellwig , Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 10/12/2010 10:08 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Otherwise we might destroy data that isn't > even touched by the guest request in case of a crash. > The failure scenarios are either that the cluster is leaked in which case, the old version of the data is still present or the cluster is orphaned because the L2 entry is written, in which case the old version of the data is present. Are you referring to a scenario where the cluster is partially written because the data is present in the write cache and the write cache isn't flushed on power failure? Regards, Anthony Liguori > Kevin >