From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:53863)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <stefanha@gmail.com>) id 1StG7N-0000DT-28
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Jul 2012 06:44:03 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <stefanha@gmail.com>) id 1StG7I-00075X-Rl
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Jul 2012 06:44:00 -0400
Received: from mail-lb0-f173.google.com ([209.85.217.173]:53057)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <stefanha@gmail.com>) id 1StG7I-00075N-It
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Jul 2012 06:43:56 -0400
Received: by lbok6 with SMTP id k6so8429231lbo.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 23 Jul 2012 03:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20120723101734.GA19871@irqsave.net>
References: <1342812757-2651-1-git-send-email-benoit@irqsave.net>
	<1342812757-2651-4-git-send-email-benoit@irqsave.net>
	<CAJSP0QX6kRAZMKXMFvWHXJdizg6X5UvhqzgSHvFQK+TsRXe_fw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120723101734.GA19871@irqsave.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:43:54 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJSP0QUUazd41x2xpPyWs8HArRaizmCAdDHDX4b_S5kASZxiOw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/3] migration: block migration when
 streaming block jobs are running.
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: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Beno=EEt_Canet?= <benoit.canet@irqsave.net>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, benoit.canet@gmail.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Beno=EEt Canet <benoit.canet@irqsave.net>=
 wrote:
> Would
>
> int bdrv_are_busy(void)
> {
>     BlockDriverState *bs;
>
>     QTAILQ_FOREACH(bs, &bdrv_states, list) {
>         if (bs->job || bdrv_in_use(bs)) {
>             return -EBUSY;
>         }
>     }
>
>     return 0;
> }
>
> be more acceptable ?

Looks fine to me.

Stefan