[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2.5 00/10] block: incremental back
From: |
Kashyap Chamarthy |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2.5 00/10] block: incremental backup transactions |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:53:11 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12) |
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 09:01:10PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
> I am not prepared to send a v3 on this, primarily because I am still
> waffling on whether or not to do the code motion patch that is present in
> patch #8 of v2 of this series.
>
> However, for the purposes of testing, reviewers may find it convenient to
> have a new version of this series that applies cleanly in concert with v6 of
> the transactionless series, so I am presenting an informal "version 2.5" of
> this series.
>
> Patches are available on github:
> https://github.com/jnsnow/qemu/commits/incremental-transactions
I just tested this w/o creating the target image, and I don't see any
error thrown.
Details:
I tested with this branch:
https://github.com/jnsnow/qemu/commits/incremental-transactions
$ git checkout -b v2.5-and-v6-inc-backup jsnow/incremental-transactions
$ git describe
v2.3.0-rc3-37-g6932a32
With a QEMU invocation (of a CirrOS disk image) with QMP server:
. . .
char device redirected to /dev/pts/31 (label charserial0)
QEMU waiting for connection on: disconnected:tcp:localhost:4444,server
And, invoking `drive-backup` *without* pre-creating the target image
(i.e. 'incremental.o.img'):
{ 'execute': 'drive-backup',
'arguments': {
'device': 'ide0-0-0',
'bitmap': 'bitmap0',
'sync': 'dirty-bitmap',
'target': 'incremental.0.img',
'mode': 'existing',
'format': 'qcow2'
}
}
Results in:
{"QMP": {"version": {"qemu": {"micro": 93, "minor": 2, "major": 2},
"package": ""}, "capabilities": []}} {"return": {}}
Instead of an "error". Is this a bug?
On a related note, Kevin Wolf said on IRC that he gets an error (without
'bitmap') when tested from QEMU master branch.
--
/kashyap