On 05/20/2015 04:20 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> 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?
>
His silence says "Markus, can you please do it? I discovered today that
I don't care about this patch."
--js
