On 10/19/2015 03:27 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> John Snow 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
On Mon, 10/19 09:27, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> John Snow 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
John Snow 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
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
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 off
