From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49169) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1er6Tq-0001Kc-TG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 13:29:31 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1er6Tp-0006x9-VJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 13:29:30 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 19:29:15 +0100 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20180228182915.GO4855@localhost.localdomain> References: <20180223235142.21501-1-jsnow@redhat.com> <20180223235142.21501-22-jsnow@redhat.com> <3dfe950d-6e46-fc41-d91a-3a6c4a6a4df1@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3dfe950d-6e46-fc41-d91a-3a6c4a6a4df1@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC v4 21/21] blockjobs: add manual_mgmt option to transactions List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: John Snow , qemu-block@nongnu.org, pkrempa@redhat.com, jtc@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Am 27.02.2018 um 21:24 hat Eric Blake geschrieben: > On 02/23/2018 05:51 PM, John Snow wrote: > > This allows us to easily force the option for all jobs belonging > > to a transaction to ensure consistency with how all those jobs > > will be handled. > > > > This is purely a convenience. > > > > Signed-off-by: John Snow > > --- > > > +++ b/qapi/transaction.json > > @@ -79,7 +79,8 @@ > > ## > > { 'struct': 'TransactionProperties', > > 'data': { > > - '*completion-mode': 'ActionCompletionMode' > > + '*completion-mode': 'ActionCompletionMode', > > + '*manual-mgmt': 'bool' > > Missing QAPI documentation (what you have elsewhere in the C code can > probably be copied here, though). > > The UI aspect makes sense (I can declare one manual at the transaction level > instead of multiple manual declarations per member level within the > transaction). I'm not so sure if I like the interface, it duplicates functionality in two places. At th very least I would make job creation without BLOCK_JOB_MANUAL an error if the transaction requires it instead of silently overriding the option that was given to the individual job. But honestly, it might be better to just leave this one away. Kevin