[libvirt] [PATCH v6 0/9] Incremental backups, focus on API

[Peter Krempa]

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 13:14:48 -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 3/26/19 12:41 PM, Peter Krempa wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 01:13:44 -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> >> I'm fairly confident that these API are ready to go (that is, I've got
> >> qemu code in the wings to implement these API for the qemu driver, as
> >> demonstrated at last KVM forum, and it shouldn't be too hard to add
> >> support in the test driver to get some 'make check' coverage similar
> >> to what I recently added for snapshots). I'm hoping the APIs make it
> >> in for 5.2, even if I'm still dealing with review churn on the later
> >> parts of my v5 series (there has been a lot of rebasing from earlier
> >> review comments, so v5 is currently still the most recent version that
> >> I was able to run demos with, although I hope to post the rest of v6
> >> soon).
> > 
> > I'm still not persuaded that pushing any API without implementation is a
> > good idea. (No, test driver implementation does not count). If the
> > consensus of others is that it's good to go then go ahead, but I want to
> > voice this concern here.
> 
> I do have the qemu implementation for checkpoints fully tested, as well
> as working for pull mode backups (the push mode backups is still demo
> quality, but as of v5, I was able to get a push mode backup started even
> if the events weren't wired up correctly).

That is okay. If there is a working subset with a real driver I don't
object. I just don't see any value in pushing API without a real
implementation from upstream point of view.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/attachments/20190327/75b91594/attachment-0001.sig>