On 04/16/2015 09:12 AM, Alberto Garcia wrote: > Signed-off-by: Alberto Garcia <be...@igalia.com> > --- > docs/live-block-ops.txt | 30 +++++++++++++++++++----------- > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/docs/live-block-ops.txt b/docs/live-block-ops.txt > index a257087..3bf86be 100644 > --- a/docs/live-block-ops.txt > +++ b/docs/live-block-ops.txt > @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ Snapshot live merge > Given a snapshot chain, described in this document in the following > format: > > -[A] -> [B] -> [C] -> [D] > +[A] -> [B] -> [C] -> [D] -> [E]
I think on the list we've mostly settled on a notation where we express this relation as: [A] <- [B] that is, the symbol "<-" makes more sense as "serves as a backing file of" than "->", so that you end up reading the relationship as "[A] serves as a backing of [B]" (or read right-to-left as "[B] has a backing file of [A]"). Of course, the direction of the arrows is pre-existing, so it doesn't hold up this patch, but we probably ought to scrub our examples to consistently use <-. > > -Where the rightmost object ([D] in the example) described is the current > +Where the rightmost object ([E] in the example) described is the current > image which the guest OS has write access to. To the left of it is its base > image, and so on accordingly until the leftmost image, which has no > base. > @@ -21,11 +21,13 @@ The snapshot live merge operation transforms such a chain > into a > smaller one with fewer elements, such as this transformation relative > to the first example: > > -[A] -> [D] > +[A] -> [E] > > -Currently only forward merge with target being the active image is > -supported, that is, data copy is performed in the right direction with > -destination being the rightmost image. > +Data is copied in the right direction with destination being the > +rightmost image, but any other intermediate image can be specified > +instead, for instance from [B] into [D]: > + > +[A] -> [B] -> [D] -> [E] Should you really describe that as moving data from [B] into [D], or would it be better to describe it as moving the data from [C] into [D] such that [D] can now be backed by [B] instead of [C]? I don't know if it is worth a tweak, and modulo my question on this one sentence, I think you've done a good job documenting the feature addition, so: Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature