[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qapi: add dirty bitmap status

From: John Snow
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qapi: add dirty bitmap status
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 13:26:13 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0

On 05/22/2015 07:49 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 22.05.2015 um 10:31 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben:
>> Kevin Wolf <address@hidden> writes:
>>> Am 21.05.2015 um 23:48 hat John Snow geschrieben:
>>>> On 05/20/2015 04:20 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>>> John Snow <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>>> On 05/12/2015 04:06 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/12/2015 01:53 PM, John Snow wrote:
>>>>>>>> Bitmaps can be in a handful of different states with potentially
>>>>>>>> more to come as we tool around with migration and persistence patches.
>>>>>>>> Instead of having a bunch of boolean fields, it was suggested that we
>>>>>>>> just have an enum status field that will help expose the reason to
>>>>>>>> management APIs why certain bitmaps may be unavailable for various
>>>>>>>> commands
>>>>>>>> (e.g. busy in another operation, busy being migrated, etc.)
>>>>>>> Might be worth mentioning that this is an API change, but safe because
>>>>>>> the old API is unreleased (and therefore, this patch MUST go in the 2.4
>>>>>>> time frame, if at all).
>>>>>>>> Suggested-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: John Snow <address@hidden>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>  block.c               | 13 ++++++++++++-
>>>>>>>>  include/block/block.h |  1 +
>>>>>>>>  qapi/block-core.json  | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>>>>>>  3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>
>>>>>> I'm not actually sure whose tree this should go in. Markus's, perhaps?
>>>>>> ("ping")
>>>>> I guess the case for "Block layer core" (Kevin) is at least as strong as
>>>>> the case for "QAPI" (me).  Kevin, what do you think?
>>> I think bdrv_query_dirty_bitmaps() really belongs into block/qapi.c,
>>> which is yours anyway. So it's either you as the QAPI maintainer or you
>>> as the block submaintainer.
>> s/the block submaintainer/the newly minted block submaintainer/
>>> But if you think otherwise, I can consider it.
>>>> His silence says "Markus, can you please do it? I discovered today that
>>>> I don't care about this patch."
>>> I'm sorry, John, but you didn't CC me, you didn't CC qemu-block, you
>>> didn't CC anyone. I only had a chance to know about it since Wednesday
>>> when Markus forwarded it, and I'm not sitting there waiting for new
>>> patch emails because I'm bored. Rest assured, I have enough of them.
>>> And then the forwarded email didn't even quote the patch any more, so I
>>> couldn't just give a quick reply, but had to find the full email thread
>>> in a different folder.
>>> If you want to have patches applied quickly, make it easy for the
>>> maintainers. You did the exact opposite, so you have no reason to
>>> complain.
>> On the other hand, his "complaining" made me smile, which I appreciate :)
> Drom secht mr's jô em Guada. ;-)
> I'm sorry if my reply reads a bit too harsh, it's not meant like that.
> In fact, the way John phrased it made me smile, too - but that doesn't
> change that it is a reproach for me, and looking at the timestamp I
> didn't feel that it was entirely fair.
> Kevin

Yes, sorry again. I will try to choose my jokes a little more carefully
in the future. I want to make people laugh, but not at the expense of
anyone's integrity.

--John Snow

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]