Am 01.03.2012 17:52, schrieb Paolo Bonzini: >>> But you can even keep from your first patch the drive-reopen command and >>> not make it atomic, that shouldn't be a problem. >> >> I'm not sure whether it makes sense for a separate drive-reopen or >> whether to just add this to blockdev-transaction (or even both); I can >> make libvirt use whichever color bikeshed we pick. There's definitely a >> transaction aspect here > > It's not so much atomicity, it's just safety. The drive-reopen command > must be implemented in a similar way to bdrv_append; it must not do a > close+reopen in the same way as the existing blockdev-snapshot-sync > command, but that's just that blockdev-snapshot-sync was implemented > poorly.
For reopen this is a bit harder because you deal with already opened images and you must never have the same image opened twice at the same time. Kevin
