On 10/19/2015 03:27 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > John Snow <js...@redhat.com> 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: <87mvwd8k9q....@blackfin.pond.sub.org> > 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.
