[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [RFC] transactions: add transaction-wide p
From: |
John Snow |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [RFC] transactions: add transaction-wide property |
Date: |
Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:55:30 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 |
On 10/19/2015 03:27 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> John Snow <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> On 10/16/2015 08:23 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:50:20PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
>>>> Ping -- any consensus on how we should implement the "do-or-die"
>>>> argument for transactions that start block jobs? :)
>>>>
>>>> This patch may look a little hokey in how it boxes arguments, but I can
>>>> re-do it on top of Eric Blake's very official way of boxing arguments,
>>>> when the QAPI dust settles.
>>>
>>> I don't understand what you are trying to do after staring at the email
>>> for 5 minutes. Maybe the other reviewers hit the same problem and
>>> haven't responded.
>>>
>>> What is the problem you're trying to solve?
>>>
>>> Stefan
>>>
>>
>> Sorry...
>>
>> What I am trying to do is to add the transactional blocker property to
>> the *transaction* command and not as an argument to each individual action.
>>
>> There was some discussion on this so I wanted to just send an RFC to
>> show what I had in mind.
>
> Was it the discussion on @transactional-cancel? I'm on record
> supporting it per transaction rather than per action:
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-09/msg05948.html
>
Yes, this is the patch trying to illustrate that. I wrote it as an RFC
that sits on top of Fam's v7, to highlight the changes between his and
my approaches.
>> This series applies on top of Fam's latest series and moves the
>> arguments from each action to a transaction-wide property.