From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39721)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1ar5mK-00043E-WE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:35:33 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1ar5mG-0002Qz-1o
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:35:28 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56327)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1ar5mF-0002Qu-TG
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:35:23 -0400
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 17:35:20 +0200
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20160415153520.GI4341@noname.redhat.com>
References: <1460494796-12668-1-git-send-email-silbe@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<878u0gih1h.fsf@oc4731375738.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <878u0gih1h.fsf@oc4731375738.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [for-2.6] Re: [PATCH] qmp-commands.hx: document
 minimum speed for block jobs
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: Sascha Silbe <silbe@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>

Am 14.04.2016 um 13:08 hat Sascha Silbe geschrieben:
> Dear developers,
> 
> Sascha Silbe <silbe@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> > The current rate limit implementation for block jobs is ineffective
> > below a certain minimum rate. It will permit writes at least once per
> > time slice. The resulting minimum write speed (assuming source and
> > sink are fast enough in the first place) is high enough that it may
> > surprise some users, so document it. Mention that this will be fixed
> > in the future, otherwise some users might misguidedly rely on it or
> > clamp their configuration settings to the documented value.
> 
> Forgot to mention: This is 2.6 material as it documents a known
> shortcoming that will hopefully be fixed in 2.7.

Isn't the JSON schema (qapi/block-core.json) considered the
authoritative source for interface specifications these days? I think if
we want to document the shortcomings for the time being, we should
document it in both places.

Kevin