On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 04:56:34PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: [...]
> > > > > > > Works for me (fwiw, I'll probably need the replace "hack" again, > > because in the RFC series I am about to send, the code is factored out > > / generalized in qmp-dispatch), but that works in the meantime, please > > send a patch. > > There have been quite a few patch ideas across multiple threads related to > OOB fallout. Hopefully I can keep straight which patches are intended for > 2.12 (anything that fixes a bug, like this one, is a good candidate, I'll mark patches with "for-2.12" if there are. > and it > would be nice if we can undo the temporary reversion of exposing OOB if we > can solve all the issues that iotests exposed). IMHO it'll still be risky considering what has already reported. Here's my plan, hopefully to make everyone happy - we keep OOB turned off for 2.12 and even later. In 2.13, I'll post some new patches to add a new monitor parameter to allow user to enable OOB explicitly, otherwise we never enable it. After all, for now the only real user should be postcopy. Then we don't need to struggle around all these mess. What do you think? -- Peter Xu
