On 05/22/2015 07:49 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > 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 >
Yes, sorry again. I will try to choose my jokes a little more carefully in the future. I want to make people laugh, but not at the expense of anyone's integrity. --John Snow