On Mon 20 Jun 2016 06:17:30 PM CEST, Max Reitz wrote: > I suppose this patch tries to "silently" (i.e. not visibly) introduce > this new ID for now? If so, there is one instance of job->id left that > should probably be changed to job->device (in block_job_complete()).
I decided to leave that one unchanged because it's an error message, it doesn't have any other practical impact and it would need to be renamed back to job->id anyway. But now that you mentioned it I see that the error message actually says "...the block job for device '%s'...", so I think I'd rather leave job->id and change the error message instead. Berto
