On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 05:27:45PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 03/06/2018 02:48 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > The blockdev-snapshot-sync command uses bdrv_append() to update all parents > > to > > point at the external snapshot node. This breaks BlockBackend's > > blk_add/remove_aio_context_notifier(), which doesn't expect a BDS change. > > > > Patch 1 fixes this by tracking AioContext notifiers in BlockBackend. > > > > See the test case in Patch 2 for a reproducer. > > > > Stefan Hajnoczi (2): > > block: let blk_add/remove_aio_context_notifier() tolerate BDS changes > > iotests: add 208 nbd-server + blockdev-snapshot-sync test case > > > > block/block-backend.c | 63 > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > block/trace-events | 2 ++ > > tests/qemu-iotests/208 | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > tests/qemu-iotests/208.out | 9 +++++++ > > tests/qemu-iotests/group | 1 + > > 5 files changed, 130 insertions(+) > > create mode 100755 tests/qemu-iotests/208 > > create mode 100644 tests/qemu-iotests/208.out > > Whose tree should this series go through? MAINTAINERS didn't flag it as > directly touching any files that normally affect my NBD queue, but given > that the iotest that reproduces the problem uses NBD, I'm fine if you want > it to go through me.
Good question. Max and Kevin maintain block/block-backend.c so one of them should be happy with this series before it gets merged. When a patch affects multiple trees, the last sub-maintainer to review it can do the merge. So if they have already posted their R-b when you are finished, then feel free to merge it! And vice versa. Stefan
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
