From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39662) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z7o3G-0002MG-S5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:01:34 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z7o3F-0003DD-Vo for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:01:30 -0400 Message-ID: <558AE25D.4010508@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 19:01:17 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1433742974-20128-1-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com> <20150608130242.GE1961@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> <20150611082911.GB22459@ad.nay.redhat.com> <20150624090831.GC22582@ad.nay.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20150624090831.GC22582@ad.nay.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-stable] [PATCH v7 0/8] block: Mirror discarded sectors List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Fam Zheng , Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: Kevin Wolf , qemu-block@nongnu.org, jsnow@redhat.com, Jeff Cody , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-stable@nongnu.org, wangxiaolong@ucloud.cn On 24/06/2015 11:08, Fam Zheng wrote: >> Stefan, >> >> The only controversial patches are the qmp/drive-mirror ones (1-3), wh= ile >> patches 4-8 are still useful on their own: they fix the mentioned cras= h and >> improve iotests. >> >> Shall we merge the second half (of course none of them depend on 1-3) = now that >> softfreeze is approaching? >=20 > Stefan, would you consider applying patches 4-8? Actually why not apply all of them? Even if blockdev-mirror is a superior interface in the long run, the current behavior of drive-mirror can cause images to balloon up to the full size, which is bad. Extending drive-mirror is okay IMHO for 2.4. Paolo