Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [RFC] transactions: add transaction-wide property

2015-10-22 Thread Stefan Hajnoczi
Thanks for summarizing the discussion! If you are taking over Fam's series, please squash in your patches to make review easier. Maybe the names can be improved: "allow-partial" is not self-explanatory. "sync-cancel" is misleading since successful completion is affected too, not just

Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [RFC] transactions: add transaction-wide property

2015-10-20 Thread John Snow
On 10/19/2015 03:27 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > John Snow writes: > >> On 10/16/2015 08:23 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:50:20PM -0400, John Snow wrote: Ping -- any consensus on how we should implement the "do-or-die" argument for

Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [RFC] transactions: add transaction-wide property

2015-10-20 Thread John Snow
So here's the current status of this blob: - Markus supports the idea of a transaction-wide property, but hasn't reviewed this particular RFC. - Eric seemed supportive of a transaction-wide property, but hasn't chimed in to this thread yet. - Stefan was not sure what this patch was trying to

Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [RFC] transactions: add transaction-wide property

2015-10-20 Thread John Snow
A little bit of cross-talk with my "state of the union" reply and this review from Eric. Sorry, everyone! On 10/20/2015 04:12 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 09/24/2015 03:40 PM, John Snow wrote: >> This replaces the per-action property as in Fam's series. >> Instead, we have a transaction-wide

Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [RFC] transactions: add transaction-wide property

2015-10-19 Thread Markus Armbruster
John Snow writes: > On 10/16/2015 08:23 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:50:20PM -0400, John Snow wrote: >>> Ping -- any consensus on how we should implement the "do-or-die" >>> argument for transactions that start block jobs? :) >>> >>> This patch may

Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [RFC] transactions: add transaction-wide property

2015-10-19 Thread Fam Zheng
On Mon, 10/19 09:27, Markus Armbruster wrote: > John Snow writes: > > > On 10/16/2015 08:23 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:50:20PM -0400, John Snow wrote: > >>> Ping -- any consensus on how we should implement the "do-or-die" > >>> argument for

Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [RFC] transactions: add transaction-wide property

2015-10-16 Thread Stefan Hajnoczi
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:50:20PM -0400, John Snow wrote: > Ping -- any consensus on how we should implement the "do-or-die" > argument for transactions that start block jobs? :) > > This patch may look a little hokey in how it boxes arguments, but I can > re-do it on top of Eric Blake's very

Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [RFC] transactions: add transaction-wide property

2015-10-16 Thread John Snow
On 10/16/2015 08:23 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:50:20PM -0400, John Snow wrote: >> Ping -- any consensus on how we should implement the "do-or-die" >> argument for transactions that start block jobs? :) >> >> This patch may look a little hokey in how it boxes

Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [RFC] transactions: add transaction-wide property

2015-10-12 Thread John Snow
Ping -- any consensus on how we should implement the "do-or-die" argument for transactions that start block jobs? :) This patch may look a little hokey in how it boxes arguments, but I can re-do it on top of Eric Blake's very official way of boxing arguments, when the QAPI dust settles. --js On