From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:53113) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TO2cc-0004OJ-Vm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 04:35:36 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TO2cY-000249-Rd for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 04:35:30 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:64165) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TO2cY-00023v-IY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 04:35:26 -0400 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q9G8ZOva030099 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 04:35:24 -0400 Message-ID: <507D1C4A.3060607@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 10:35:22 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1348675011-8794-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1348675011-8794-27-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <507C4065.2010508@redhat.com> <507D0089.8000104@redhat.com> <507D19DA.8030605@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <507D19DA.8030605@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 26/45] mirror: introduce mirror job List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: jcody@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Il 16/10/2012 10:24, Kevin Wolf ha scritto: >> > The idea was that block-job-cancel will still leave the target in a >> > consistent state if executed during the second phase. Otherwise it is >> > impossible to take a consistent snapshot and keep running on the first >> > image. > Yes, I noticed that when reading one of the following patches. However, > this behaviour didn't seem to be documented very well. IIRC, you do > mention it in the QMP documentation for block-job-complete, but wouldn't > it make sense to describe what cancel/complete mean in the documentation > for drive-mirror as well? > > I'd also consider putting a comment in the code that explicitly says > that we intentionally wait for a consistent state before actually > cancelling. This is not the intuitive thing to do with cancel, so it > confused me. Ok, I'll add comments. Paolo