From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33509) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1df3fx-0005we-3f for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Aug 2017 08:32:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1df3fs-0002cO-6d for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Aug 2017 08:31:57 -0400 Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com ([194.213.3.17]:20772) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1df3fr-0002an-Sz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Aug 2017 08:31:52 -0400 References: <1499182263-19139-1-git-send-email-pradeep.jagadeesh@huawei.com> <1499182263-19139-3-git-send-email-pradeep.jagadeesh@huawei.com> <87bmoxcuvn.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <61626c42-9c47-14e5-24b7-e6086d042a6b@huawei.com> <87shh3fn7d.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> From: Pradeep Jagadeesh Message-ID: <34e45421-0b22-15b4-deb7-980f26e5ca23@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 14:30:43 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 2/6] qmp: Create IOThrottle structure List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alberto Garcia , Markus Armbruster Cc: Pradeep Jagadeesh , jani kokkonen , greg kurz , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Kevin Wolf On 8/8/2017 1:30 PM, Alberto Garcia wrote: > On Mon 07 Aug 2017 04:48:38 PM CEST, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>>> Awkward question for a v7, but here goes anyway: why is IOThrottle >>>> worth its very own .json file? >>> I feel this is a common throttle structure that is used by block >>> devices as well as fsdev, so moved to a separate file. >> I'm not sure that's a good idea. Kevin, Berto, what do you think? > > Mmm... I don't have a very strong opinion, but if there's no actual need > to move it to a separate file I'd prefer to leave it where it is. The segregation is the solid reason. Because throttling is a feature that is used by fsdev, block may many more in future. I do not see moving it back to block does it make any sense? Regards, Pradeep > > Berto >