From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48423)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <benoit.canet@nodalink.com>) id 1XZC0h-0001Sh-0p
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2014 00:59:37 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <benoit.canet@nodalink.com>) id 1XZC0a-0005vk-Sb
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2014 00:59:30 -0400
Received: from dew.nodalink.com ([95.130.14.197]:39347)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <benoit.canet@nodalink.com>) id 1XZC0a-0005vV-MW
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2014 00:59:24 -0400
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 04:59:24 +0000
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Beno=EEt?= Canet <benoit.canet@nodalink.com>
Message-ID: <20141001045924.GA5378@nodalink.com>
References: <1411412452-8655-1-git-send-email-benoit.canet@nodalink.com>
	<1411412452-8655-3-git-send-email-benoit.canet@nodalink.com>
	<20141001043842.GA12347@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20141001043842.GA12347@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] block: Make op blockers recursive
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: Jeff Cody <jcody@redhat.com>
Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, famz@redhat.com, stefanha@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Beno=EEt?= Canet <benoit.canet@nodalink.com>

>=20
> Seems like these new functions would be better named '.bdrv_op_block'
> and '.bdrv_op_unblock'?  That way, recursive or not, it is clear block
> drivers can implement whatever blocking is appropriate for themselves.
>=20
> >      QLIST_ENTRY(BlockDriver) list;
> >  };

Hi,

Thanks a lot for review.
I will mull this and respond in the begining of the afternoon.

Best regards

Beno=EEt