From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36629) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZuOX9-0006sW-Ni for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 12:41:16 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZuOX8-0002sV-Rb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 12:41:11 -0500 References: <1446663467-22485-1-git-send-email-mreitz@redhat.com> <1446663467-22485-15-git-send-email-mreitz@redhat.com> <563B8EBA.8070506@redhat.com> <563B93BD.2080805@redhat.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <563B94A5.3030905@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 18:40:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <563B93BD.2080805@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v6 14/15] block: Rewrite bdrv_close_all() List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Max Reitz , qemu-block@nongnu.org Cc: Kevin Wolf , Alberto Garcia , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster , Stefan Hajnoczi On 05/11/2015 18:37, Max Reitz wrote: > $ x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64 -qmp stdio \ -drive > if=none,file=test.qcow2,id=drive0,node-name=node0 {"QMP": > {"version": {"qemu": {"micro": 50, "minor": 4, "major": 2}, > "package": ""}, "capabilities": []}} > {'execute':'qmp_capabilities'} {"return": {}} > {'execute':'drive-backup','arguments':{'device':'drive0','target':'out.qcow2','format':'qcow2','sync':'none'}} > > Formatting 'out.qcow2', fmt=qcow2 size=67108864 backing_file=test.qcow2 > backing_fmt=qcow2 encryption=off cluster_size=65536 > lazy_refcounts=off refcount_bits=16 {"return": {}} > {'execute':'eject','arguments':{'device':'drive0'}} {"error": > {"class": "GenericError", "desc": "Node 'drive0' is busy: block > device is in use by block job: backup"}} > > So... Nobody does it, but apparently nobody has to because you > cannot eject (to be more specific: use blockdev-remove-medium) a > BDS from a BB while a block job is running on the BDS. If you test it with all jobs, then it's okay. It's a regression, but not introduced by your patch and apparently nobody noticed. Even if nobody noticed, I wonder if this "Node 'foo' is busy" kind of error deserves its own ErrorClass. Eric, what do you think? Paolo