From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Np8JA-0004bj-2B
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:53:48 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36552 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Np8J9-0004bT-Nu
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:53:47 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim
	4.60) (envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1Np8J7-0004HM-Sb
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:53:47 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:32232)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1Np8J7-0004HC-4g
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:53:45 -0500
Received: from int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.21])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o29MrfIP019193
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 17:53:41 -0500
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Date: Tue,  9 Mar 2010 19:53:33 -0300
Message-Id: <1268175216-3600-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/3]: BLOCK_WATERMARK QMP event
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, uril@redhat.com

 Hi,

 This series is based on a previous series submitted by Uri Lublin:

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2009-03/msg00864.html

 Details on the patches, except for this question: does it make sense to have
a 'low' watermark for block devices?

 I think it doesn't, then the event (and the monitor accompanying command)
should be called BLOCK_HIGH_WATERMARK. But this makes the event very
unflexible, so I have called it BLOCK_WATERMARK and added parameters for the
high/low watermark type.

 It's a machine protocol, so I don't think the additional parameter
matters much.