Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 23/06/2015 11:00, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> My point is: the problem is more general than just block nodes. Doesn't
>> mean we mustn't solve the special problem unless we solve the general
>> problem. Does mean we should at least try to solve the general problem,
>>
On 23/06/2015 11:00, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> My point is: the problem is more general than just block nodes. Doesn't
> mean we mustn't solve the special problem unless we solve the general
> problem. Does mean we should at least try to solve the general problem,
> and if we fail, try our bes
Copying Paolo for advice on the more general problem.
Can you explain why we need this in 2.4?
Eric Blake writes:
> From: Jeff Cody
>
> Currently, node_name is only filled in when done so explicitly by the
> user. If no node_name is specified, then the node name field is not
> populated.
Thi
From: Jeff Cody
Currently, node_name is only filled in when done so explicitly by the
user. If no node_name is specified, then the node name field is not
populated.
If node_names are automatically generated when not specified, that means
that all block job operations can be done by reference to
