From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40705) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cxrbj-0006yb-6X for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 04:57:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cxrbf-000587-Ud for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 04:57:03 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59310) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cxrbf-00057l-OG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 04:56:59 -0400 References: <20170323173928.14439-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20170323173928.14439-4-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20170410092255.GD2567@stefanha-x1.localdomain> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 12:00:36 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170410092255.GD2567@stefanha-x1.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 03/10] blockjob: introduce block_job_fail List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, jcody@redhat.com, jsnow@redhat.com On 10/04/2017 17:22, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >> >> Later on, block_job_fail will also have different locking than >> block_job_unref. > block_job_fail() sounds like it's *the* job failure API. > How about block_job_fail_early()? >=20 > It indicates the API is only for the beginning of the job's lifecycle. Can't disagree and I'll apply your suggestion. Thanks, Paolo