From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
References: <1431460381-8530-1-git-send-email-jsnow@redhat.com>
	<55525D43.6060402@redhat.com> <555BA8A4.8070407@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 10:20:37 +0200
In-Reply-To: <555BA8A4.8070407@redhat.com> (John Snow's message of "Tue, 19
	May 2015 17:18:28 -0400")
Message-ID: <87wq033bje.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qapi: add dirty bitmap status
To: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com> writes:

> On 05/12/2015 04:06 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 05/12/2015 01:53 PM, John Snow wrote:
>>> Bitmaps can be in a handful of different states with potentially
>>> more to come as we tool around with migration and persistence patches.
>>>
>>> Instead of having a bunch of boolean fields, it was suggested that we
>>> just have an enum status field that will help expose the reason to
>>> management APIs why certain bitmaps may be unavailable for various
>>> commands
>>>
>>> (e.g. busy in another operation, busy being migrated, etc.)
>> 
>> Might be worth mentioning that this is an API change, but safe because
>> the old API is unreleased (and therefore, this patch MUST go in the 2.4
>> time frame, if at all).
>> 
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>  block.c               | 13 ++++++++++++-
>>>  include/block/block.h |  1 +
>>>  qapi/block-core.json  | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>  3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>> 
>> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
>> 
>
> I'm not actually sure whose tree this should go in. Markus's, perhaps?
>
> ("ping")

I guess the case for "Block layer core" (Kevin) is at least as strong as
the case for "QAPI" (me).  Kevin, what do you think?