John Snow <js...@redhat.com> writes:
> On 05/12/2015 04:06 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 05/12/2015 01:53 PM, John Snow wrote:
>>> Bitmaps can be in a handful of different states with potentially
>>> more to come as we tool around with migration and persistence patches.
>>>
>>> Instead of having a bunch of boolean fields, it was suggested that we
>>> just have an enum status field that will help expose the reason to
>>> management APIs why certain bitmaps may be unavailable for various
>>> commands
>>>
>>> (e.g. busy in another operation, busy being migrated, etc.)
>>
>> Might be worth mentioning that this is an API change, but safe because
>> the old API is unreleased (and therefore, this patch MUST go in the 2.4
>> time frame, if at all).
>>
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: John Snow <js...@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> block.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
>>> include/block/block.h | 1 +
>>> qapi/block-core.json | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
>>> 3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com>
>>
>
> I'm not actually sure whose tree this should go in. Markus's, perhaps?
>
> ("ping")
I guess the case for "Block layer core" (Kevin) is at least as strong as
the case for "QAPI" (me). Kevin, what do you think?
