John Snow <js...@redhat.com> writes: > On 10/16/2015 08:23 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:50:20PM -0400, John Snow wrote: >>> Ping -- any consensus on how we should implement the "do-or-die" >>> argument for transactions that start block jobs? :) >>> >>> This patch may look a little hokey in how it boxes arguments, but I can >>> re-do it on top of Eric Blake's very official way of boxing arguments, >>> when the QAPI dust settles. >> >> I don't understand what you are trying to do after staring at the email >> for 5 minutes. Maybe the other reviewers hit the same problem and >> haven't responded. >> >> What is the problem you're trying to solve? >> >> Stefan >> > > Sorry... > > What I am trying to do is to add the transactional blocker property to > the *transaction* command and not as an argument to each individual action. > > There was some discussion on this so I wanted to just send an RFC to > show what I had in mind.
Was it the discussion on @transactional-cancel? I'm on record supporting it per transaction rather than per action: Message-ID: <87mvwd8k9q....@blackfin.pond.sub.org> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-09/msg05948.html > This series applies on top of Fam's latest series and moves the > arguments from each action to a transaction-wide property.