Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> writes:
> Am 21.05.2015 um 23:48 hat John Snow geschrieben:
>>
>>
>> On 05/20/2015 04:20 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> > John Snow <js...@redhat.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> On 05/12/2015 04:06 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> >>> On 05/12/2015 01:53 PM, John Snow wrote:
>> >>>> Bitmaps can be in a handful of different states with potentially
>> >>>> more to come as we tool around with migration and persistence patches.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Instead of having a bunch of boolean fields, it was suggested that we
>> >>>> just have an enum status field that will help expose the reason to
>> >>>> management APIs why certain bitmaps may be unavailable for various
>> >>>> commands
>> >>>>
>> >>>> (e.g. busy in another operation, busy being migrated, etc.)
>> >>>
>> >>> Might be worth mentioning that this is an API change, but safe because
>> >>> the old API is unreleased (and therefore, this patch MUST go in the 2.4
>> >>> time frame, if at all).
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Suggested-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com>
>> >>>> Signed-off-by: John Snow <js...@redhat.com>
>> >>>> ---
>> >>>> block.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
>> >>>> include/block/block.h | 1 +
>> >>>> qapi/block-core.json | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
>> >>>> 3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I'm not actually sure whose tree this should go in. Markus's, perhaps?
>> >>
>> >> ("ping")
>> >
>> > I guess the case for "Block layer core" (Kevin) is at least as strong as
>> > the case for "QAPI" (me). Kevin, what do you think?
>
> I think bdrv_query_dirty_bitmaps() really belongs into block/qapi.c,
> which is yours anyway. So it's either you as the QAPI maintainer or you
> as the block submaintainer.
s/the block submaintainer/the newly minted block submaintainer/
> But if you think otherwise, I can consider it.
>
>> His silence says "Markus, can you please do it? I discovered today that
>> I don't care about this patch."
>
> I'm sorry, John, but you didn't CC me, you didn't CC qemu-block, you
> didn't CC anyone. I only had a chance to know about it since Wednesday
> when Markus forwarded it, and I'm not sitting there waiting for new
> patch emails because I'm bored. Rest assured, I have enough of them.
>
> And then the forwarded email didn't even quote the patch any more, so I
> couldn't just give a quick reply, but had to find the full email thread
> in a different folder.
>
> If you want to have patches applied quickly, make it easy for the
> maintainers. You did the exact opposite, so you have no reason to
> complain.
On the other hand, his "complaining" made me smile, which I appreciate :)
Don't worry, John, I'll take it through my tree.
