On 24/01/2022 15:26, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 1/21/22 17:04, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>>>
>>> The split was proposed in previous versions, but Vladimir did not
>>> really like it and suggested to send it as a separate series:
>>
>> I didn't really like it as it seemed unusual and unobvious to me. But
>> if we already accepted similar split for generic block layer, no way
>> for me to resist :) And if we follow new logic of generic block layer
>> in jobs, it's not "unusual" any more.
>
> Either way I think it's okay to have it as a follow-up. The explicit
> naming in the API is a bit verbose but definitely clearer, so it's okay
> to order different than the graph/IO split. In that case we weren't
> even sure, until you went through all the testcase failures, that a
> _locked or rather "_drained" API was possible.
>
> Paolo
>
Ok, I will send the split in a separate series.
Thank you,
Emanuele
