From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Np8SU-0001Yw-NZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:03:26 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37649 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Np8SU-0001Yk-Da
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:03:26 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim
	4.60) (envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Np8SS-0005Y0-Gi
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:03:25 -0500
Received: from mail-gy0-f173.google.com ([209.85.160.173]:45264)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Np8SR-0005Xc-UH
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:03:24 -0500
Received: by gyh4 with SMTP id 4so3587513gyh.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:03:22 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B96D3B2.6070204@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:03:14 -0600
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/3]: BLOCK_WATERMARK QMP event
References: <1268175216-3600-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <1268175216-3600-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, uril@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 03/09/2010 04:53 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>   Hi,
>
>   This series is based on a previous series submitted by Uri Lublin:
>
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2009-03/msg00864.html
>
>   Details on the patches, except for this question: does it make sense to have
> a 'low' watermark for block devices?
>    

Does it make sense to have a high watermark?

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>   I think it doesn't, then the event (and the monitor accompanying command)
> should be called BLOCK_HIGH_WATERMARK. But this makes the event very
> unflexible, so I have called it BLOCK_WATERMARK and added parameters for the
> high/low watermark type.
>
>   It's a machine protocol, so I don't think the additional parameter
> matters much.
>
>
>