On Tue 22 Sep 2015 05:00:05 PM CEST, Max Reitz wrote:
>> The correct way to solve this seems to be that each BB has its own
>> I/O throttling filter. Actually, if we could lift the throttling code
>> to BlockBackend, that might solve the problem.
>
> So yes, as long as we have throttling on the
On 09/29/2015 05:17 AM, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> On Tue 22 Sep 2015 05:00:05 PM CEST, Max Reitz wrote:
>
>>> The correct way to solve this seems to be that each BB has its own
>>> I/O throttling filter. Actually, if we could lift the throttling code
>>> to BlockBackend, that might solve the
Am 29.09.2015 um 14:30 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
> On 09/29/2015 05:17 AM, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> > On Tue 22 Sep 2015 05:00:05 PM CEST, Max Reitz wrote:
> >
> >>> The correct way to solve this seems to be that each BB has its own
> >>> I/O throttling filter. Actually, if we could lift the
Am 18.09.2015 um 17:22 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> This structure will store some of the state of the root BDS if the BDS
> tree is removed, so that state can be restored once a new BDS tree is
> inserted.
This is magic that is bound to bite us sooner or later. I see that we
have to do this in
On 22.09.2015 16:17, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 18.09.2015 um 17:22 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
>> This structure will store some of the state of the root BDS if the BDS
>> tree is removed, so that state can be restored once a new BDS tree is
>> inserted.
>
> This is magic that is bound to bite us
This structure will store some of the state of the root BDS if the BDS
tree is removed, so that state can be restored once a new BDS tree is
inserted.
Signed-off-by: Max Reitz
Reviewed-by: Eric Blake
---
block/block-backend.c | 37