From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59887) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d0Mjs-0007xo-8G for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 02:35:49 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d0Mjo-0004Ny-VX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 02:35:48 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46938) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d0Mjo-0004Nj-Pa for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 02:35:44 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8428431F3F8 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 06:35:43 +0000 (UTC) From: Juan Quintela In-Reply-To: (Eric Blake's message of "Mon, 17 Apr 2017 15:26:50 -0500") References: <20170417200041.2451-1-quintela@redhat.com> <20170417200041.2451-10-quintela@redhat.com> Reply-To: quintela@redhat.com Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 08:35:42 +0200 Message-ID: <874lxmjk8x.fsf@secure.mitica> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 09/19] migration: Create block capabilities for shared and enable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, dgilbert@redhat.com Eric Blake wrote: > On 04/17/2017 03:00 PM, Juan Quintela wrote: >> This two capabilites were added through the command line. Notice that > > s/This/These/ > s/capabilites/capabilities/ > >> we just created them. This is just the boilerplate. >> >> Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela >> --- >> include/migration/migration.h | 3 +++ >> migration/migration.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> qapi-schema.json | 7 ++++++- >> 3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > I think this is a nice cleanup, even if it is exposing the internal > block migration (the 'migrate -b' stuff) that we really don't like (it > is one of the things causing grief at the 2.9-rc4 stage), because users > should be favoring NBD migration over internal block migration these days. I am 1st in the queue to remove it, but each time that we talk about removing it, somebody appears to came to fix it :-p So, if it has to stay, just update it with the times. > Reviewed-by: Eric Blake