From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33928) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZeDD6-0001Xo-Qo for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 22:21:37 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZeDD2-0007cq-UF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 22:21:36 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:55152) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZeDD2-0007cj-P9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 22:21:32 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 10:15:50 +0800 From: Fam Zheng Message-ID: <20150922021550.GD32115@ad.nay.redhat.com> References: <1442297513-7001-1-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com> <1442297513-7001-7-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com> <560084BD.6010407@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <560084BD.6010407@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v6 06/14] blockjob: Add .commit and .abort block job actions List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: John Snow Cc: Kevin Wolf , Jeff Cody , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Max Reitz , vsementsov@parallels.com, stefanha@redhat.com On Mon, 09/21 18:29, John Snow wrote: > > > On 09/15/2015 02:11 AM, Fam Zheng wrote: > > Reviewed-by: Max Reitz > > Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng > > --- > > include/block/blockjob.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/include/block/blockjob.h b/include/block/blockjob.h > > index 3e7ad21..a7b497c 100644 > > --- a/include/block/blockjob.h > > +++ b/include/block/blockjob.h > > @@ -50,6 +50,24 @@ typedef struct BlockJobDriver { > > * manually. > > */ > > void (*complete)(BlockJob *job, Error **errp); > > + > > + /** > > + * If the callback is not NULL, it will be invoked when all the jobs > > + * belonging to the same transaction complete; or upon this job's > > + * completion if it is not in a transaction. Skipped if NULL. > > + * > > + * Exactly one of .commit() and .abort() will be called for each job. > > + */ > > + void (*commit)(BlockJob *job); > > + > > I find this phrasing strange, but maybe it's just me. "Exactly one of > commit and abort will be called for each job" implies [to me] that it'd > be possible to call commit for one, but abort for different jobs [in a > transaction] -- but clearly we don't mean that. It is the "for each job" > that implies an iteration over a collection to me. > > Just above we say "[commit] will be invoked when all the jobs belonging > to the same transaction are complete" which itself implies either all > jobs will be committed or all jobs will be aborted. > > Maybe: > > "All jobs will complete with a call to either .commit() or .abort() but > never both." > > But I might be being too bikesheddy. > > > + /** > > + * If the callback is not NULL, it will be invoked when any job in the > > + * same transaction fails; or upon this job's failure (due to error or > > + * cancellation) if it is not in a transaction. Skipped if NULL. > > + * > > + * Exactly one of .commit() and .abort() will be called for each job. > > + */ > > + void (*abort)(BlockJob *job); > > } BlockJobDriver; > > > > /** > > > > I'm probably just too picky. > > Reviewed-by: John Snow > No problem, It makese sense, I'll use your words :) Thanks. Fam