On 24/01/2022 15:26, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 1/21/22 17:04, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: >>> >>> The split was proposed in previous versions, but Vladimir did not >>> really like it and suggested to send it as a separate series: >> >> I didn't really like it as it seemed unusual and unobvious to me. But >> if we already accepted similar split for generic block layer, no way >> for me to resist :) And if we follow new logic of generic block layer >> in jobs, it's not "unusual" any more. > > Either way I think it's okay to have it as a follow-up. The explicit > naming in the API is a bit verbose but definitely clearer, so it's okay > to order different than the graph/IO split. In that case we weren't > even sure, until you went through all the testcase failures, that a > _locked or rather "_drained" API was possible. > > Paolo > Ok, I will send the split in a separate series. Thank you, Emanuele
