From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:60295)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1S7kZ1-0007qs-6Y
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 05:32:16 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1S7kYo-0008Ha-1v
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 05:32:10 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:64739)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1S7kYn-0008HV-QS
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 05:31:57 -0400
Message-ID: <4F60665E.4070104@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:35:26 +0100
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1331056563-7503-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<1331056563-7503-11-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<4F5FB28A.4090605@redhat.com> <4F60623B.1090305@redhat.com>
	<4F60629B.2030303@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F60629B.2030303@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 10/10] Add the drive-reopen command
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: fsimonce@redhat.com, Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com, lcapitulino@redhat.com

Am 14.03.2012 10:19, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> Il 14/03/2012 10:17, Kevin Wolf ha scritto:
>> If we want to do this,  it needs to be the same patch, as we couple the
>> transaction actions with top-level commands as long as there is no other
>> way to discover the possible actions. And it probably makes more sense
>> anyway, because the top-level command would be just a thin wrapper
>> around the transactional one.
>>
>> Only problem is that just moving the code there doesn't make it suitable
>> for a transaction and doing an all-or-nothing drive-reopen isn't quite
>> trivial.
> 
> We can also add a "transactionable" item to query-commands.  If we do it
> after 1.1, in absence of it only blockdev-snapshot-sync and drive-mirror
> are transactionable.  Otherwise we can do it now.

Sounds reasonable. If we want to do it, I would prefer to do it right now.

Kevin