From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53376) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ym3ix-0006kD-8D for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:18:40 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ym3is-0007ix-9S for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:18:39 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:55939) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ym3is-0007il-4K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 25 Apr 2015 13:18:34 -0400 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 010998EA38 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:18:32 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 19:18:29 +0200 From: Kashyap Chamarthy Message-ID: <20150425171829.GA13856@tesla.redhat.com> References: <1429864368-15249-1-git-send-email-kchamart@redhat.com> <553A66A0.9020608@redhat.com> <20150424162039.GA25722@tesla.redhat.com> <553AACEF.1050405@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <553AACEF.1050405@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] qmp-commands.hx: Update the supported 'transaction' operations List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, John Snow , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, lcapitulino@redhat.com On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 02:51:59PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 04/24/2015 10:20 AM, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:52:00AM -0400, John Snow wrote: > >> > >> On 04/24/2015 04:32 AM, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote: > > > > [. . .] > > > >> These: > >> > >>> block-dirty-bitmap-add > >>> block-dirty-bitmap-clear > >>> > >> > >> Aren't merged yet, so it might be a little confusing. > > > > Yeah, I expected someone to call that out, that's the reason I added the > > NB at the end of the commit message which explicitly states that these > > will be usable once your series (linked below) is merged, hoping that'd > > clarify. > > > >> We could tack this on to the end of the transaction series if you'd > >> like, and hopefully that all goes in at once before 2.4. > > > > That works too. > > > > If it's preferable, I can respin this to remove the mention of above two > > commands and resubmit a v3. > > I would have just added a note after the '---' line that the patch > depends on the transaction series going in first. That is, basically > appending this on to the end of the transaction series is the best > approach for now, rather than trying to respin without the new > commands. Agreed. John: as you suggested, too, please "tack this on to the end of" your transaction patch series. Thanks. -- /kashyap