From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41119) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UkaRX-0007NQ-Qb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 06 Jun 2013 09:41:34 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UkaRS-0004Pl-09 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 06 Jun 2013 09:41:31 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-f177.google.com ([209.85.192.177]:35960) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UkaRR-0004Pd-Q6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 06 Jun 2013 09:41:25 -0400 Received: by mail-pd0-f177.google.com with SMTP id u10so3376801pdi.36 for ; Thu, 06 Jun 2013 06:41:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51B0917F.7080402@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 21:41:19 +0800 From: Liu Yuan MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1370519849-10620-1-git-send-email-namei.unix@gmail.com> <1370519849-10620-3-git-send-email-namei.unix@gmail.com> <20130606124629.GE2586@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20130606124629.GE2586@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] sheepdog: support 'qemu-img snapshot -a' List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , sheepdog@lists.wpkg.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, MORITA Kazutaka On 06/06/2013 08:46 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > I'm not sure how snapshots work internally for Sheepdog, but it seems > odd to me that you need to do this only for disk-only snapshots, but not > when the snapshot has VM state. (Also, note that 'qemu-img snapshot -a' > works on images with a VM state, so the comment doesn't seem to be > completely accurate) Seems that I misunderstood your comments. What my 2/2 patch tried to do is enable 'qemu-img snapshot -a' to rollback the sheepdog disk states only and it is correct. So what I need fixing is comment, right? how about the commenting as 'qemu-img asks us to rollback disk only, we can't rely on the write request to sd_create_branch, so just call it directly' ? Thanks, Yuan