Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v6 14/15] block: Rewrite bdrv_close_all()

[Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256



On 05/11/2015 18:44, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> If you test it with all jobs, then it's okay.  It's a
>>> regression, but not introduced by your patch and apparently
>>> nobody noticed.
>>> 
>>> Even if nobody noticed, I wonder if this "Node 'foo' is busy"
>>> kind of error deserves its own ErrorClass.  Eric, what do you
>>> think?
> Needing a unique ErrorClass is only important if we expect a
> client (libvirt) would behave differently based on that error class
> (clients are not allowed to parse the error message).  But what is
> the scenario that we are trying to test here, rewritten in terms of
> libvirt API commands?  Should libvirt behave any differently
> because a blockjob was running than for any other failure, if the
> end result is still that libvirt can't eject or hot-unplug the disk
> because of a failure?

It may want to cancel the job and redo the operation.  Or it may
trigger an assertion failure.  I don't know...  that's why I asked. :)

Paolo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWO5e4AAoJEL/70l94x66DbSQH/31+AI5zFN9UtbQCMgzEKQfA
EYm2gqZOQtOyaRRQI1VKOzekKTy60Y1Z1iT84PrZz7pI3PhG/qoEGG5aOeKxqjc8
tkl0DxYd4y1Mhf2Hgm4bNcswcEx5wshy0hIbqFQJUVokE0e7bx297ePw5zoTU1uY
HOI0298gEHV7DA0Ux4koMi+88rIA5oPAWf3Hlxpf2A4152KXrVyh24ErELCkClCR
p5EVy0urZgwscpm38GK+a2xXq8IQXRYbJZbnTxGaCLY4TAvuaEWhJ90B0mhvnNch
GFKQPHMfrtR7N0b31hX4Ok2sRUKH/0/kKrjp/NpFxohNL0Rp9XS5JvQuGe+i3+s=
=bl13
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----