From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46948)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <berto@igalia.com>) id 1YTY0Q-0005KC-L9
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:48:11 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <berto@igalia.com>) id 1YTY0N-00046U-FQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:48:10 -0500
Received: from smtp3.mundo-r.com ([212.51.32.191]:46609 helo=smtp4.mundo-r.com)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <berto@igalia.com>) id 1YTY0N-00045d-8G
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:48:07 -0500
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:47:47 +0100
From: Alberto Garcia <berto@igalia.com>
Message-ID: <20150305154747.GA4844@igalia.com>
References: <cover.1424439295.git.berto@igalia.com>
	<2e1103fe919e6a065dbd2e305f8b9b0fdb687b4e.1424439295.git.berto@igalia.com>
	<20150305140425.GD5427@noname.redhat.com>
	<20150305145831.GA750@igalia.com>
	<20150305151552.GF5427@noname.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150305151552.GF5427@noname.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/3] block: Support streaming to an
	intermediate layer
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>

On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 04:15:52PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:

> > > 3. As the BDS that owns the job
> > > 
> > > My question is whether we can't simply call stream_start()
> > > with an intermediate node as bs instead of introducing a new
> > > parameter. I'm not completely sure about the consequences of
> > > 3., i.e. moving ownership of a block job to some BDS somewhere
> > > down the chain, but otherwise it should be possible and seems
> > > cleaner.
> > 
> > Since I was also not sure about the consequences of such a change
> > I opted for the conservative approach.
> 
> I see. I'm worried about the external API. If we let the root node
> own the job, we may paint ourselves into a corner with respect to
> nodes with multiple users and therefore multiple possible root
> nodes.

I'll try to move the job to the intermediate node and see where I can
get then.

Berto