On 05/11/2017 08:43 PM, John Snow wrote: > > On 05/11/2017 02:35 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >> Daniel's proposed patch isn't large or invasive. The QMP interface is >> consistent with the backup block job's sync=bitmap mode, it's a logical >> extension. >> >> If the concerns about the bitmap lifecycle are addressed and a test case >> is included then I don't see anything preventing this patch from being >> merged. >> > I agree. > > Daniel, I'm preoccupied with some other tasks at the moment, but I will > look over your patch again with an eye for how the bitmap data is > handled on failure cases. Once we agree on a design, we'll need some > basic tests (a success case, and one for each type of unique failure > path) and then we're good to go. > > --js yes, no problem from my side too, except the point raised by John about deletion of the bitmap during mirror.
Den
