Am 22.05.2015 um 10:31 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben: > Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> writes: > > > Am 21.05.2015 um 23:48 hat John Snow geschrieben: > >> > >> > >> 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? > > > > I think bdrv_query_dirty_bitmaps() really belongs into block/qapi.c, > > which is yours anyway. So it's either you as the QAPI maintainer or you > > as the block submaintainer. > > s/the block submaintainer/the newly minted block submaintainer/ > > > But if you think otherwise, I can consider it. > > > >> His silence says "Markus, can you please do it? I discovered today that > >> I don't care about this patch." > > > > I'm sorry, John, but you didn't CC me, you didn't CC qemu-block, you > > didn't CC anyone. I only had a chance to know about it since Wednesday > > when Markus forwarded it, and I'm not sitting there waiting for new > > patch emails because I'm bored. Rest assured, I have enough of them. > > > > And then the forwarded email didn't even quote the patch any more, so I > > couldn't just give a quick reply, but had to find the full email thread > > in a different folder. > > > > If you want to have patches applied quickly, make it easy for the > > maintainers. You did the exact opposite, so you have no reason to > > complain. > > On the other hand, his "complaining" made me smile, which I appreciate :)
Drom secht mr's jô em Guada. ;-) I'm sorry if my reply reads a bit too harsh, it's not meant like that. In fact, the way John phrased it made me smile, too - but that doesn't change that it is a reproach for me, and looking at the timestamp I didn't feel that it was entirely fair. Kevin