From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56206) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dzYXt-0005rb-I9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Oct 2017 21:32:23 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dzYXs-0002Xb-Og for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Oct 2017 21:32:21 -0400 References: <20171003031556.15173-1-jsnow@redhat.com> <20171003031556.15173-4-jsnow@redhat.com> <2458dfaf-5c50-bdc7-3a9e-d018099a42cf@redhat.com> <84555a15-9ec6-2b28-a118-c209c97efd45@redhat.com> <20171003174305.GG4501@localhost.localdomain> From: John Snow Message-ID: <9b8b78ac-0a5c-77a0-2d76-be5e950b5cfe@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 21:32:11 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171003174305.GG4501@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/3] blockjob: expose manual-cull property List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jeff Cody Cc: Paolo Bonzini , qemu-block@nongnu.org, kwolf@redhat.com, pkrempa@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 10/03/2017 01:43 PM, Jeff Cody wrote: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 11:59:28AM -0400, John Snow wrote: >> >> >> On 10/03/2017 11:57 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> On 03/10/2017 05:15, John Snow wrote: >>>> For drive-backup and blockdev-backup, expose the manual-cull >>>> property, having it default to false. There are no universal >>>> creation parameters, so it must be added to each job type that >>>> it makes sense for individually. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: John Snow >> >> [...] >> >>> >>> The verb "cull" is a bit weird. The only alternative that comes to mind >>> though are "reap" (like processes). There's also "join" (like threads), >>> but would imply waiting if the jobs hasn't completed yet, and we >>> probably don't want it. >>> >>> Paolo >>> >> >> Sure, open to suggestions. I think Kevin suggested "delete" which I have >> reservations about because of people potentially confusing it with >> "cancel" or "complete" -- it does not have the capacity to >> end/terminate/finish/complete/cancel a job. >> >> "reap" might be fine. I don't really have any strong preference. >> > > As far as verbs go, I like both 'reap' and 'delete'. As far as the > property, naming it 'manual_verb' is a bit odd, too. Maybe a clearer term > for the property would just be 'persistent', with the QMP command being > 'block_job_reap' or 'block_job_delete'? > > -Jeff > As they say, two hard problems in Computer Science ...