From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38355) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ciiht-0001Ss-Sv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 09:24:51 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ciiht-0002Tn-3N for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 09:24:49 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 22:24:40 +0800 From: Fam Zheng Message-ID: <20170228142440.GA2344@lemon.lan> References: <1488286469-9381-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1488286469-9381-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 00/44] New op blocker system, part 1 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: qemu-block@nongnu.org, mreitz@redhat.com, jcody@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Tue, 02/28 13:53, Kevin Wolf wrote: > This series is the first part of implementing the new op blocker system > whose design was agreed on quite a while ago, but proved a bit tricky to > implement in places. There is more work to do to fully replace the old op > blocker system, but realistically we don't have that much time until the 2.9 > freeze. So let's merge this series to complement the traditional op blockers > and plan with a second part for the 2.10 timeframe. If we don't merge this, what should we do during the lengthy winter^Wfreeze? ;-) Seriously, the series looks pretty good to me. I didn't leave my rev-by patch by patch when reviewing previous versions, because I focused on my overall happiness on the API (frankly, I was a bit skeptical about the apparent complexity of this at the first sight). Now that I think I am happy, and also as I don't have time for a blanket review on the whole series today that upholds a full rev-by, I'm going to give: Acked-by: Fam Zheng