From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58240) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eFeCy-0007pE-HZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 05:49:17 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eFeCx-0000SM-Nk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 05:49:16 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:49:05 +0100 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20171117104905.GA4795@localhost.localdomain> References: <20171115090947.29883-1-kchamart@redhat.com> <0b29e074-6548-d42e-12ab-67419342773e@redhat.com> <20171115215433.fpihpl645mlholgo@eukaryote> <6ac3e1b3-d3b0-afe4-4d87-e8c421084d7f@redhat.com> <20171116091405.pleud7qrqzu5nzhb@eukaryote> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171116091405.pleud7qrqzu5nzhb@eukaryote> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [PATCH v2] qapi: block-core: Clarify events emitted by 'block-job-cancel' List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kashyap Chamarthy Cc: John Snow , mreitz@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org, armbru@redhat.com Am 16.11.2017 um 10:14 hat Kashyap Chamarthy geschrieben: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 04:56:13PM -0500, John Snow wrote: > >=20 > >=20 > > On 11/15/2017 04:54 PM, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 02:15:57PM -0500, John Snow wrote: >=20 > [...] >=20 > > >> is it covered sufficiently in live-block-operations.rst ? > > >=20 > > > I looked in there[2] too. Short answer: no. Long: In the "Live di= sk > > > synchronization =E2=80=94 drive-mirror and blockdev-mirror" section= , I simply > > > seemed to declare:=20 > > >=20 > > > "Issuing the command ``block-job-cancel`` after it emits the ev= ent > > > ``BLOCK_JOB_CANCELLED``" > > >=20 > > > As if that's the *only* event it emits, which is clearly not the ca= se. > > > So while at it, wonder if should I also update it > > > ('live-block-operations.rst') too. > > >=20 > >=20 > > It's an interesting gotcha that I wasn't really acutely aware of myse= lf, > > so having it in the doc format for API programmers who aren't > > necessarily digging through our source sounds like a pleasant courtes= y. >=20 > Indeed, will do. (Just for my own clarity, did you imply: don't update > it in block-core.json? FWIW, my first instinct is to check the QAPI > documentation for such things, that's why I wrote there first :-)) Will that be a separate patch or do you intend to send a v3? Kevin