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 <js...@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 <ebl...@redhat.com> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: John Snow <js...@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 <ebl...@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? > > 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