On 09/16/2016 04:33 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 16.09.2016 um 01:42 hat John Snow geschrieben:
One more try.
The move to blk_flush altered the behavior of migration and flushing
nodes that are not reachable via the guest, but are still reachable
via QEMU and may or may not need to be flushed.
Am 16.09.2016 um 01:42 hat John Snow geschrieben:
> One more try.
>
> The move to blk_flush altered the behavior of migration and flushing
> nodes that are not reachable via the guest, but are still reachable
> via QEMU and may or may not need to be flushed.
>
> This is likely the simplest
On 09/15/2016 08:06 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 16/09/2016 01:42, John Snow wrote:
One more try.
The move to blk_flush altered the behavior of migration and flushing
nodes that are not reachable via the guest, but are still reachable
via QEMU and may or may not need to be flushed.
This is
On 16/09/2016 02:09, John Snow wrote:
>
>
> On 09/15/2016 08:06 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16/09/2016 01:42, John Snow wrote:
>>> One more try.
>>>
>>> The move to blk_flush altered the behavior of migration and flushing
>>> nodes that are not reachable via the guest, but are still
On 16/09/2016 01:42, John Snow wrote:
> One more try.
>
> The move to blk_flush altered the behavior of migration and flushing
> nodes that are not reachable via the guest, but are still reachable
> via QEMU and may or may not need to be flushed.
>
> This is likely the simplest solution for
One more try.
The move to blk_flush altered the behavior of migration and flushing
nodes that are not reachable via the guest, but are still reachable
via QEMU and may or may not need to be flushed.
This is likely the simplest solution for now until we nail down our
policy a bit more.
This is