On 08/09/2015 11:41, Denis V. Lunev wrote: > This solution is far not perfect as there is a race window for > request complete anyway. Though the amount of failures is > reduced by 2-3 orders of magnitude. > > The behavior is similar not for soft mounts, which could > corrupt the data but to hard mounts which are default AFAIR. > It will not corrupt the data and should patiently wait > request complete. > > Without the disk the guest is not able to serve any request and > thus keeping it running does not make serious sense. > > This approach is used by Odin in production for years and > we were able to seriously reduce the amount of end-user > reclamations. We were unable to invent any reasonable > solution without guest modification/timeouts tuning. > > Anyway, this code is off by default, storage agnostic, separated. > Yes, we will be able to maintain it for us out-of-tree, but...
I'm not saying the patches are unacceptable, not at all. It just needs a bit of documentation to understand the tradeoffs. I admit I have not even started reading the code. Your experience is very valuable, and it's great that you are contributing it to QEMU and KVM! Paolo
