On 11/23/2011 07:48 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > This means that virDomainBlockJobAbort() returns to the client without > a guarantee that the job has completed. If the client enumerates jobs > it may still see a job that has not finished cancelling. The client > must register a handler for the BLOCK_JOB_CANCELLED event if it wants > to know when the job really goes away. The BLOCK_JOB_CANCELLED event > has the same fields as the BLOCK_JOB_COMPLETED event, except it lacks > the optional "error" message field. > > The impact on clients is that they need to add a BLOCK_JOB_CANCELLED > handler if they really want to wait. Most clients today (not many > exist) will be fine without waiting for cancellation. > > Any objections or thoughts on this?
virDomainBlockJobAbort() thankfully has an 'unsigned int flags' argument. For backwards-compatibility, I suggest we use it: calling virDomainBlockJobAbort(,0) maintains old blocking behavior, and we document that blocking until things abort may render the rest of interactions with the domain unresponsive. The new virDomainBlockJobAbort(,VIR_DOMAIN_BLOCK_JOB_ABORT_ASYNC) would then implement your new proposed semantics of returning immediately once the cancellation has been requested, even if it hasn't been acted on yet. Maybe you could convince me to swap the flags: have 0 change semantics to non-blocking, and a new flag to request blocking, where callers that care have to try the flag, and if the flag is unsupported then they know they are talking to older libvirtd where the behavior is blocking by default, but that's a bit riskier. -- Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
