From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51908) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1agYE9-0004J1-AG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:44:38 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1agYE6-0007MP-4U for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:44:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:44:17 +0100 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20160317134417.GA4833@noname.redhat.com> References: <1458154485-32536-1-git-send-email-mreitz@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1458154485-32536-1-git-send-email-mreitz@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 00/17] blockdev: Further BlockBackend work List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Max Reitz Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster Am 16.03.2016 um 19:54 hat Max Reitz geschrieben: > This series appears to reinvent itself with every revision. This time, > its main implication is that BBs are no longer automatically treated as > monitor-owned, and that a BB's name is tightly tied to the monitor > reference (it is considered equivalent to that reference). Thanks, applied to the block branch. > v4: > - blk_hide_on_behalf_of_hmp_drive_del() does a bit more than what > monitor_remove_blk() does; namely, it invokes bdrv_make_anon() on the > BDS. We should probably continue to do so. Probably not, removing the node-name of a BDS just because a BB disappears certainly feels like a bug. Even more so now that node-names are auto-generated and the general assumption is that all BDSes have one. But that's a preexisting problem, so we can fix it on top. Kevin