Il 16/10/2012 10:24, Kevin Wolf ha scritto: >> > The idea was that block-job-cancel will still leave the target in a >> > consistent state if executed during the second phase. Otherwise it is >> > impossible to take a consistent snapshot and keep running on the first >> > image. > Yes, I noticed that when reading one of the following patches. However, > this behaviour didn't seem to be documented very well. IIRC, you do > mention it in the QMP documentation for block-job-complete, but wouldn't > it make sense to describe what cancel/complete mean in the documentation > for drive-mirror as well? > > I'd also consider putting a comment in the code that explicitly says > that we intentionally wait for a consistent state before actually > cancelling. This is not the intuitive thing to do with cancel, so it > confused me.
Ok, I'll add comments. Paolo
