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. This series applies on top of Fam's latest series and moves the arguments from each action to a transaction-wide property.
