From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51136) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZoZGE-0001eX-VY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:55:40 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZoZGD-0000EK-TJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:55:38 -0400 References: <1443130823-10723-1-git-send-email-jsnow@redhat.com> <561BE4CC.9070705@redhat.com> <20151016122331.GJ10205@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> <56212609.807@redhat.com> <87zizfxqr8.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> From: John Snow Message-ID: <562663F2.5060606@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:55:30 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87zizfxqr8.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [RFC] transactions: add transaction-wide property List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , famz@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org On 10/19/2015 03:27 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > John Snow writes: > >> On 10/16/2015 08:23 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:50:20PM -0400, John Snow wrote: >>>> Ping -- any consensus on how we should implement the "do-or-die" >>>> argument for transactions that start block jobs? :) >>>> >>>> This patch may look a little hokey in how it boxes arguments, but I can >>>> re-do it on top of Eric Blake's very official way of boxing arguments, >>>> when the QAPI dust settles. >>> >>> I don't understand what you are trying to do after staring at the email >>> for 5 minutes. Maybe the other reviewers hit the same problem and >>> haven't responded. >>> >>> What is the problem you're trying to solve? >>> >>> Stefan >>> >> >> Sorry... >> >> What I am trying to do is to add the transactional blocker property to >> the *transaction* command and not as an argument to each individual action. >> >> There was some discussion on this so I wanted to just send an RFC to >> show what I had in mind. > > Was it the discussion on @transactional-cancel? I'm on record > supporting it per transaction rather than per action: > Message-ID: <87mvwd8k9q.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-09/msg05948.html > Yes, this is the patch trying to illustrate that. I wrote it as an RFC that sits on top of Fam's v7, to highlight the changes between his and my approaches. >> This series applies on top of Fam's latest series and moves the >> arguments from each action to a transaction-wide property.