-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
On 05/11/2015 18:44, Eric Blake wrote: >>> If you test it with all jobs, then it's okay. It's a >>> regression, but not introduced by your patch and apparently >>> nobody noticed. >>> >>> Even if nobody noticed, I wonder if this "Node 'foo' is busy" >>> kind of error deserves its own ErrorClass. Eric, what do you >>> think? > Needing a unique ErrorClass is only important if we expect a > client (libvirt) would behave differently based on that error class > (clients are not allowed to parse the error message). But what is > the scenario that we are trying to test here, rewritten in terms of > libvirt API commands? Should libvirt behave any differently > because a blockjob was running than for any other failure, if the > end result is still that libvirt can't eject or hot-unplug the disk > because of a failure? It may want to cancel the job and redo the operation. Or it may trigger an assertion failure. I don't know... that's why I asked. :) Paolo -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWO5e4AAoJEL/70l94x66DbSQH/31+AI5zFN9UtbQCMgzEKQfA EYm2gqZOQtOyaRRQI1VKOzekKTy60Y1Z1iT84PrZz7pI3PhG/qoEGG5aOeKxqjc8 tkl0DxYd4y1Mhf2Hgm4bNcswcEx5wshy0hIbqFQJUVokE0e7bx297ePw5zoTU1uY HOI0298gEHV7DA0Ux4koMi+88rIA5oPAWf3Hlxpf2A4152KXrVyh24ErELCkClCR p5EVy0urZgwscpm38GK+a2xXq8IQXRYbJZbnTxGaCLY4TAvuaEWhJ90B0mhvnNch GFKQPHMfrtR7N0b31hX4Ok2sRUKH/0/kKrjp/NpFxohNL0Rp9XS5JvQuGe+i3+s= =bl13 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
