Am 02.07.2014 um 08:49 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben: > Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes: > > > On 06/27/2014 11:24 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> > >> --- > >> docs/qmp/qmp-events.txt | 12 ++++++++++-- > >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/docs/qmp/qmp-events.txt b/docs/qmp/qmp-events.txt > >> index 22fea58..44be891 100644 > >> --- a/docs/qmp/qmp-events.txt > >> +++ b/docs/qmp/qmp-events.txt > >> @@ -157,12 +157,20 @@ Emitted when a block job is ready to complete. > >> > >> Data: > >> > >> -- "device": device name (json-string) > >> +- "type": Job type (json-string; "stream" for image streaming > >> + "commit" for block commit) > >> +- "device": Device name (json-string) > >> +- "len": Maximum progress value (json-int) > >> +- "offset": Current progress value (json-int) > >> + On success this is equal to len. > >> + On failure this is less than len. > >> +- "speed": Rate limit, bytes per second (json-int) > >> > > > > Design question - if BLOCK_JOB_READY reports failure (that is, offset < > > len), are we still guaranteed to get a BLOCK_JOB_COMPLETED that also > > reports failure, or does 'query-blockjobs' completely forget about the > > job? > > Good one. It's underspecified, as far as I can tell. First step to fix > that is to find out what the code does.
As far as I can see, BLOCK_JOB_READY implies success up to the point where the event was emitted. Should we document that len = offset in all cases? Perhaps add an assertion to block_job_event_ready(), too? Kevin
