On Mon, 10/19 09:27, Markus Armbruster wrote: > John Snow <js...@redhat.com> writes: > > > On 10/16/2015 08:23 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > >> 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 > >> > > > > Sorry... > > > > What I am trying to do is to add the transactional blocker property to > > the *transaction* command and not as an argument to each individual action. > > > > There was some discussion on this so I wanted to just send an RFC to > > show what I had in mind. > > Was it the discussion on @transactional-cancel? I'm on record > supporting it per transaction rather than per action: > Message-ID: <87mvwd8k9q....@blackfin.pond.sub.org> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-09/msg05948.html
I prefer we start with a per-transaction flag as in this patch. Any fine-grained arguments could be added in the future if it turns out to be useful. I'll take a look at the implementation later. Fam > > > This series applies on top of Fam's latest series and moves the > > arguments from each action to a transaction-wide property.
