From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34168) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1er7L3-0008S1-S4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 14:24:30 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1er7L3-0002x8-1P for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 14:24:29 -0500 References: <20180223235142.21501-1-jsnow@redhat.com> <20180223235142.21501-22-jsnow@redhat.com> <3dfe950d-6e46-fc41-d91a-3a6c4a6a4df1@redhat.com> <20180228182915.GO4855@localhost.localdomain> From: John Snow Message-ID: <49305409-e541-d0c2-4088-4929530c9f1b@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 14:24:20 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180228182915.GO4855@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Kevin Wolf , Eric Blake Cc: qemu-block@nongnu.org, pkrempa@redhat.com, jtc@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 02/28/2018 01:29 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > 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 > Sure, I put it in the trailing position here because I see it as optional. I don't like the idea of having to specify manual for each and every item in a transaction, but if mixed-mode is possible then this is less important. I'll leave it off for now, but I will always fondly remember it, and then maybe try to sneak it back in for v6. --js