From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57670) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1caUpk-0000nc-5h for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 05 Feb 2017 16:58:56 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1caUpj-0001pu-Cx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 05 Feb 2017 16:58:56 -0500 References: <20170123123056.30383-1-famz@redhat.com> From: Max Reitz Message-ID: Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 22:58:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170123123056.30383-1-famz@redhat.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="UJjDd2Fw5nQp8nWbNqP8iS4UtccC1qEAJ" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 00/16] block: Image locking series List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Fam Zheng , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: "Daniel P. Berrange" , qemu-block@nongnu.org, eblake@redhat.com, Kevin Wolf , rjones@redhat.com This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --UJjDd2Fw5nQp8nWbNqP8iS4UtccC1qEAJ From: Max Reitz To: Fam Zheng , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: "Daniel P. Berrange" , qemu-block@nongnu.org, eblake@redhat.com, Kevin Wolf , rjones@redhat.com Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 00/16] block: Image locking series References: <20170123123056.30383-1-famz@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20170123123056.30383-1-famz@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 23.01.2017 13:30, Fam Zheng wrote: > v12: Fix test cases on old systems that doesn't have F_OFD_SETLK, such = as RHEL > 6. [Patchew] > Trim the commit message of patch 15 to avoid bitrotting. >=20 > v11: Move lock bytes from 1-2 to 0x10-0x12. [Daniel] >=20 > v10: While we still don't have comprehensive propagation mechanism that= will be > provided by new op blocker system for "permissive modes", the locking e= nabled > by default is regardlessly useful and long overdue. So I think we shoul= d merge > this for 2.9 and build user options on top later when the op blocker AP= I > settles. Reasonable, but it's worth noting that on my to-review list op blockers actually have priority over this for 2.9... (Or rather, they would have if there was a series posted.) Max --UJjDd2Fw5nQp8nWbNqP8iS4UtccC1qEAJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQFGBAEBCAAwFiEEkb62CjDbPohX0Rgp9AfbAGHVz0AFAliXoBgSHG1yZWl0ekBy ZWRoYXQuY29tAAoJEPQH2wBh1c9AJooH/3DN9MSSYY/SuFJndmyAVMlkXNXAgWhX DQ9F0IGIueE/Sf/nhme/2NypmBuimJ4Su+NBkoXSR2DlR6/6jIxSMx6lDO94USb3 /w7S6tHK9GwAOxI08dRtvrOEHIxF4KNp6YPcfZ+wqRlZlJJJOp3VRioxvQc5SkrP 2vSjP6Y8Sdu8PRHaIC4NoFEwTdsSUUg8F9GZsjCcv/ixiWmdaXjVczPP6EPAze0M +YlQQar7X6l/TzC72GXOpTREKyYP1naTj8apxwzng8jYgq1aeICLw3V3ayJP5roo z3NcWBqbQjy99hMFw++CZjDLNpw24MQ1Rm3UuKp5jEuU2HvPmABFsG4= =jz/2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --UJjDd2Fw5nQp8nWbNqP8iS4UtccC1qEAJ--