From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35639) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cyfoK-0004Pr-8M for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 10:33:27 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cyfoG-0006PG-5r for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 10:33:24 -0400 References: <20170412204641.GA15762@localhost.localdomain> <20170412222251.GB15762@localhost.localdomain> <20170412235420.GB8607@lemon> From: Eric Blake Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 09:33:06 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rNuDG50TDiREq7Bf3suAeCNkdM90dxtce" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Regression from 2.8: stuck in bdrv_drain() List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell , Fam Zheng Cc: Kevin Wolf , Qemu-block , Jeff Cody , QEMU Developers , Stefan Hajnoczi , Paolo Bonzini , John Snow This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --rNuDG50TDiREq7Bf3suAeCNkdM90dxtce From: Eric Blake To: Peter Maydell , Fam Zheng Cc: Kevin Wolf , Qemu-block , Jeff Cody , QEMU Developers , Stefan Hajnoczi , Paolo Bonzini , John Snow Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Regression from 2.8: stuck in bdrv_drain() References: <20170412204641.GA15762@localhost.localdomain> <20170412222251.GB15762@localhost.localdomain> <20170412235420.GB8607@lemon> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 04/13/2017 04:48 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 13 April 2017 at 00:54, Fam Zheng wrote: >> John and I confirmed that this can be fixed by this pending patch: >> >> [PATCH for-2.9 4/5] block: Drain BH in bdrv_drained_begin >> >> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-04/msg01018.html >> >> It didn't make it into 2.9-rc4 because of limited time. :( >> >> Looks like there is no -rc5, we'll have to document this as a known is= sue. >=20 > Well, we *hope* there is no -rc5, but if the bug is genuinely > a "we can't release like this" bug we will obviously have to > do another rc. Basically you all as the block maintainers should > make the call about whether it's release-critical or not. Just curious: is there a technical reason we couldn't spin an -rc5 today (with just the fix to this issue), and slip the schedule only by two days instead of a full week? And/or shorten the time for testing -rc5 from the usual 7 days into 5? I don't know what other constraints we have to play with, so feel free to tell me that my idea is not feasible. Also, while I'm a block layer contributor, I'm not one of its co-maintainers, so I'd trust the replies from others a bit more than mine when deciding what to do here. --=20 Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org --rNuDG50TDiREq7Bf3suAeCNkdM90dxtce Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Public key at http://people.redhat.com/eblake/eblake.gpg Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJY74wiAAoJEKeha0olJ0Nq/hEH/Aq6xWaRt3rgsxhkq1TFhHSS w1V+nWomBM+/IMz7rVIqTM1Tk1hPfjg06xVyiD0wFuMbGExMVqy8XHKZFj2tfEXk F9q1aU6SM2tC5yUEM/yBsJBK0FttKvQaiumZRbUi48LMvmiWd2/p2geC5q8bZhId qtB7jujVFt7RoBgPu34bv+Yt+LyeY0+9ZZXp8SEt7c4vu6ABaaT8GSj+F8RLCNA9 CeLFrsbbyxMDj7q3qKfub/y1irtlEiH3rG5X6ZIAblCu8YCLSQ77Rzr8Qt6u0CFa MnSZBbkHCLttPfVVnue/5Z1pio9Nq0hh+83UNXMBWhAz1iMrgcm2ITFk3dtSYg0= =pPDN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --rNuDG50TDiREq7Bf3suAeCNkdM90dxtce--