Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] qapi/block-core: derpecate block-job-change

[Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>]

Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru> writes:

> On 18.07.24 14:01, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru> writes:
>> 
>>> That's a first step to move on newer job-* APIs.
>>>
>>> The difference between block-job-change and job-change is in
>>> find_block_job_locked() vs find_job_locked() functions. What's
>>> different?
>>>
>>> 1. find_block_job_locked() do check, is found job a block-job. This OK
>>
>> Do you mean something like find_block_job_locked() finds only block
>> jobs, whereas find_job_locked() finds any kind of job?
>
> Yes

Thanks!

>>>     when moving to more generic API, no needs to document this change.
>>>
>>> 2. find_block_job_locked() reports DeviceNotActive on failure, when
>>>    find_job_locked() reports GenericError. Still, for block-job-change
>>>    errors are not documented at all, so be silent in deprecated.txt as
>>>    well.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>

Suggest:

    1. find_block_job_locked() finds only block jobs, whereas
       find_job_locked() finds any kind of job.  job-change is a
       compatible extension of block-job-change.

    2. find_block_job_locked() reports DeviceNotActive on failure, when
       find_job_locked() reports GenericError.  Since the kind of error
       reported isn't documented for either command, and clients
       shouldn't rely on undocumented error details, job-change is a
       compatible replacement for block-job-change.