Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qapi: add dirty bitmap status

[John Snow]

On 05/22/2015 04:22 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 21.05.2015 um 23:48 hat John Snow geschrieben:
>>
>>
>> On 05/20/2015 04:20 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> John Snow <address@hidden> 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 <address@hidden>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: John Snow <address@hidden>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  block.c               | 13 ++++++++++++-
>>>>>>  include/block/block.h |  1 +
>>>>>>  qapi/block-core.json  | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>>>>  3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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?
> 
> I think bdrv_query_dirty_bitmaps() really belongs into block/qapi.c,
> which is yours anyway. So it's either you as the QAPI maintainer or you
> as the block submaintainer.
> 
> But if you think otherwise, I can consider it.
> 
>> His silence says "Markus, can you please do it? I discovered today that
>> I don't care about this patch."
> 
> I'm sorry, John, but you didn't CC me, you didn't CC qemu-block, you
> didn't CC anyone. I only had a chance to know about it since Wednesday
> when Markus forwarded it, and I'm not sitting there waiting for new
> patch emails because I'm bored. Rest assured, I have enough of them.
> 
> And then the forwarded email didn't even quote the patch any more, so I
> couldn't just give a quick reply, but had to find the full email thread
> in a different folder.
> 
> If you want to have patches applied quickly, make it easy for the
> maintainers. You did the exact opposite, so you have no reason to
> complain.
> 
> Kevin
> 

Sorry, I didn't mean it to come across that way. I wasn't complaining,
I just figured that it wasn't on your radar and decided to ping Markus
again.

My apologies for making it seem like I was being critical of your
response times, that wasn't my intent. I figured it got lost in the
shuffle and just wanted to prod Markus to take it into his QAPI tree.

This patch isn't /that/ important, so I promise I wasn't being
impatient, just a miss on being funny.

--js