Am 11.05.2015 um 15:10 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben:
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 08:29:09AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
On 05/08/2015 07:14 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
No it doesn't. Actions have to appear atomic to the qmp_transaction
caller. Both approaches achieve that so they are both
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 08:29:09AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
On 05/08/2015 07:14 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
No it doesn't. Actions have to appear atomic to the qmp_transaction
caller. Both approaches achieve that so they are both correct in
isolation.
The ambiguity is whether commit
On 08.05.2015 15:14, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:22:26PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
On 05/07/2015 10:54 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 08:04:44PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
+static void block_dirty_bitmap_clear_prepare(BlkTransactionState
*common, +
On 05/08/2015 09:17 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
On 08.05.2015 15:14, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:22:26PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
On 05/07/2015 10:54 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 08:04:44PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
+static void
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 01:22:26PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
On 05/07/2015 10:54 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 08:04:44PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
+static void block_dirty_bitmap_clear_prepare(BlkTransactionState
*common, +
On 05/07/2015 10:54 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 08:04:44PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
+static void block_dirty_bitmap_clear_prepare(BlkTransactionState
*common, + Error
**errp) +{ +BlockDirtyBitmapState *state =
