On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 08:36:54 -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
On 10/13/2017 12:43 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 14:57:36 -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
On 10/12/2017 02:07 PM, Peter Krempa wrote:
[..]
When we were always regenerating the chain on the fly, there wasn't much stability to worry about. But now that we are going to try to preserve the index across domain reboots, we need to make sure we know which way we want things to work.
I don't really want to go as far as guaranteeing the numbers across reboots. I think keeping them across one lifetime should be good enough.
Unless anyone else has strong opinions about disk indices not always being stable, I can live with this as your design goal. As I mentioned in 4/9, I didn't see anything wrong with the code itself, so as long as we don't have a problem with the design implications:
The idea for the indexes to always refer to the same image was there from the beginning, we only cut corners when implementing it the first time. I'm now paying back the technical debt with a lot of interest.
Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Thanks for the review. I've pushed these.