On Tue, 10/11 11:35, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > >By the way, why did we allow to add a 'bitmap' option for DriveBackup
> > >without adding it to BlockdevBackup at the same time?
> >
> > I don't remember. I'm not sure anyone ever audited it to convince
> > themselves it was a useful or safe thing to
Am 11.10.2016 um 00:51 hat John Snow geschrieben:
> >>Sadly for me, I realized this patch has a potential problem. When we
> >>were adding the bitmap operations, it became clear that the
> >>atomicity point was during .prepare, not .commit.
> >>
> >>e.g. the bitmap is cleared or created during
On 11/10/2016 00:51, John Snow wrote:
>> Clearing the bitmap is a bug because the caller could expect that the
>> bitmap is in its original state if the transaction fails. I doubt this
>> is a problem in practice, but we should fix it anyway.
>
> We make a backup to undo the process if it
On 10/10/2016 04:57 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 07.10.2016 um 20:39 hat John Snow geschrieben:
On 09/30/2016 06:00 PM, John Snow wrote:
Refactor backup_start as backup_job_create, which only creates the job,
but does not automatically start it. The old interface, 'backup_start',
is not kept in
Am 07.10.2016 um 20:39 hat John Snow geschrieben:
> On 09/30/2016 06:00 PM, John Snow wrote:
> >Refactor backup_start as backup_job_create, which only creates the job,
> >but does not automatically start it. The old interface, 'backup_start',
> >is not kept in favor of limiting the number of
On 09/30/2016 06:00 PM, John Snow wrote:
Refactor backup_start as backup_job_create, which only creates the job,
but does not automatically start it. The old interface, 'backup_start',
is not kept in favor of limiting the number of nearly-identical iterfaces
that would have to be edited to
