From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58439) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZoPHg-0002JY-B2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 01:16:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZoPHf-0005PS-3m for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 01:16:28 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:16:15 +0800 From: Fam Zheng Message-ID: <20151020051615.GA3987@ad.usersys.redhat.com> References: <1443130823-10723-1-git-send-email-jsnow@redhat.com> <561BE4CC.9070705@redhat.com> <20151016122331.GJ10205@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> <56212609.807@redhat.com> <87zizfxqr8.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87zizfxqr8.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [RFC] transactions: add transaction-wide property List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , John Snow , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org On Mon, 10/19 09:27, Markus Armbruster wrote: > John Snow writes: > > > On 10/16/2015 08:23 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:50:20PM -0400, John Snow wrote: > >>> Ping -- any consensus on how we should implement the "do-or-die" > >>> argument for transactions that start block jobs? :) > >>> > >>> This patch may look a little hokey in how it boxes arguments, but I can > >>> re-do it on top of Eric Blake's very official way of boxing arguments, > >>> when the QAPI dust settles. > >> > >> I don't understand what you are trying to do after staring at the email > >> for 5 minutes. Maybe the other reviewers hit the same problem and > >> haven't responded. > >> > >> What is the problem you're trying to solve? > >> > >> Stefan > >> > > > > Sorry... > > > > What I am trying to do is to add the transactional blocker property to > > the *transaction* command and not as an argument to each individual action. > > > > There was some discussion on this so I wanted to just send an RFC to > > show what I had in mind. > > Was it the discussion on @transactional-cancel? I'm on record > supporting it per transaction rather than per action: > Message-ID: <87mvwd8k9q.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-09/msg05948.html I prefer we start with a per-transaction flag as in this patch. Any fine-grained arguments could be added in the future if it turns out to be useful. I'll take a look at the implementation later. Fam > > > This series applies on top of Fam's latest series and moves the > > arguments from each action to a transaction-wide property.