From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46497) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zn42u-0005NK-Ra for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 08:23:44 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zn42u-0007eW-4p for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 08:23:40 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:23:31 +0200 From: Stefan Hajnoczi Message-ID: <20151016122331.GJ10205@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> References: <1443130823-10723-1-git-send-email-jsnow@redhat.com> <561BE4CC.9070705@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <561BE4CC.9070705@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [RFC] transactions: add transaction-wide property List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: John Snow Cc: famz@redhat.com, armbru@redhat.com, qemu-block@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org 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