[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 02/11] blockjob: centralize QMP

From: Markus Armbruster
Subject: Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 02/11] blockjob: centralize QMP event emissions
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:50:51 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)

John Snow <address@hidden> writes:

> On 10/05/2016 09:43 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Here we have an additional caller in block/replication.c and qemu-img,
>> so the parameters must stay. For qemu-img, nothing changes. For
>> replication, the block job events are added as a side effect.
>> Not sure if we want to emit such events for an internal block job, but
>> if we do want the change, it should be explicit.
> Hmm, do we want to make it so some jobs are invisible and others are
> not? Because as it stands right now, neither case is strictly true. We
> only emit cancelled/completed events if it was started via QMP,
> however we do emit events for error and ready regardless of who
> started the job.
> That didn't seem particularly consistent to me; either all events
> should be controlled by the job layer itself or none of them should
> be.
> I opted for "all."
> For "internal" jobs that did not previously emit any events, is it not
> true that these jobs still appear in the block job list and are
> effectively public regardless? I'd argue that these messages may be of
> value for management utilities who are still blocked by these jobs
> whether or not they are 'internal' or not.
> I'll push for keeping it mandatory and explicit. If it becomes a
> problem, we can always add a 'silent' job property that silences ALL
> qmp events, including all completion, error, and ready notices.
> I've CC'd Wen Congyang and Eric Blake to talk me down if they wish.

Having read the thread so far, I have two high-level remarks:

1. We should expose a job externally either completely (all queries show
it, all events get sent, any non-query command works normally as far as
it makes sense) or not at all.

2. Exposing internal jobs risks making them ABI.  Implementation details
need to be kept out of ABI.  So the question is whether the job is truly
internal detail, or a bona fide part of the external interface.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]