[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3] qapi: add dirty-bitmaps to query-named-block
From: |
Eric Blake |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3] qapi: add dirty-bitmaps to query-named-block-nodes result |
Date: |
Wed, 17 Jul 2019 14:13:59 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0 |
On 7/17/19 12:39 PM, John Snow wrote:
> From: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <address@hidden>
>
> Let's add a possibility to query dirty-bitmaps not only on root nodes.
> It is useful when dealing both with snapshots and incremental backups.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <address@hidden>
> [Added deprecation information. --js]
> Signed-off-by: John Snow <address@hidden>
> ---
> block/qapi.c | 5 +++++
> qapi/block-core.json | 6 +++++-
> qemu-deprecated.texi | 12 ++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> +++ b/qapi/block-core.json
> @@ -360,6 +360,9 @@
> # @write_threshold: configured write threshold for the device.
> # 0 if disabled. (Since 2.3)
> #
> +# @dirty-bitmaps: dirty bitmaps information (only present if node
> +# has one or more dirty bitmaps) (Since 4.2)
> +#
Naming-wise, everything else in this struct uses 'foo_bar' while your
addition uses 'foo-bar'. But at this point, I don't know if it's worth
uglifying this addition just to fit in.
> # Since: 0.14.0
> #
> ##
> @@ -378,7 +381,7 @@
> '*bps_wr_max_length': 'int', '*iops_max_length': 'int',
> '*iops_rd_max_length': 'int', '*iops_wr_max_length': 'int',
> '*iops_size': 'int', '*group': 'str', 'cache':
> 'BlockdevCacheInfo',
> - 'write_threshold': 'int' } }
> + 'write_threshold': 'int', '*dirty-bitmaps': ['BlockDirtyInfo'] }
> }
>
> ##
> # @BlockDeviceIoStatus:
> @@ -656,6 +659,7 @@
> #
> # @dirty-bitmaps: dirty bitmaps information (only present if the
> # driver has one or more dirty bitmaps) (Since 2.0)
> +# Deprecated in 4.2; see BlockDirtyInfo instead.
s/BlockDirtyInfo/BlockDeviceInfo/
With the spelling fix,
Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>
Is this worth squeezing into 4.1, to start the deprecation clock one
cycle earlier (on the grounds that the missing information for anonymous
nodes is a bug)? Or am I pushing the boundaries too far, where keeping
this as 4.2 material remains the best course of action?
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature