On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 06:41:04AM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: > On 03/23/2018 08:41 PM, Peter Xu wrote: > > > > 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? > > If you're going to add a CLI parameter that must be specified for OOB to > even be advertised, then it is MUCH less invasive to existing clients (it > does mean that opting in to OOB now requires the command line argument AND > the capability request during qmp_capabilities) - as such, enabling the > opt-in during 2.12 is less controversial, and I see no reason to defer it to > 2.13, especially if you want to maximize testing of the new feature to shake > out the bugs it encounters. > > If you want to be cautious, name the command-line parameter --x-oob for now, > we can rename it later to drop the x- prefix, or remove the parameter > altogether if we decide by opting in via merely qmp_capabilities is > sufficient.
Hmm, it seems I don't even need to wait. :-) I'll prepare something soon (together with some existing known fixes). Thanks! -- Peter Xu
