Re: [libvirt] [PATCH v2 4/6] block/dirty-bitmap: explicitly lock bitmaps with successors

2019-02-22 Thread John Snow
On 2/18/19 11:52 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > 14.02.2019 2:23, John Snow wrote: >> Instead of implying a locked status, make it explicit. > > locked interferes with bitmap mutex, so may be better "qmp_locked state", but > not sure. > I agree that "locked" has too many meanings,

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH v2 4/6] block/dirty-bitmap: explicitly lock bitmaps with successors

2019-02-18 Thread Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
14.02.2019 2:23, John Snow wrote: > Instead of implying a locked status, make it explicit. locked interferes with bitmap mutex, so may be better "qmp_locked state", but not sure. > Now, bitmaps in use by migration, NBD or backup operations > are all treated the same way with the same code paths.

[libvirt] [PATCH v2 4/6] block/dirty-bitmap: explicitly lock bitmaps with successors

2019-02-13 Thread John Snow
Instead of implying a locked status, make it explicit. Now, bitmaps in use by migration, NBD or backup operations are all treated the same way with the same code paths. Signed-off-by: John Snow Reviewed-by: Eric Blake --- block/dirty-bitmap.c | 9 + 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 de