Re: [PATCH 2/3] block: do not check bdrv_file_open

[Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>]

Am 12.12.2022 um 14:16 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
> The set of BlockDrivers that have .bdrv_file_open coincides with those
> that have .protocol_name and guess what---checking drv->bdrv_file_open
> is done to see if the driver is a protocol.  So check drv->protocol_name
> instead.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> ---
>  block.c | 13 ++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/block.c b/block.c
> index 0a625a489a6e..7a66cc2ea23a 100644
> --- a/block.c
> +++ b/block.c
> @@ -911,7 +911,6 @@ BlockDriver *bdrv_find_protocol(const char *filename,
>      int i;
>  
>      GLOBAL_STATE_CODE();
> -    /* TODO Drivers without bdrv_file_open must be specified explicitly */
>  
>      /*
>       * XXX(hch): we really should not let host device detection
> @@ -1618,7 +1617,7 @@ static int bdrv_open_driver(BlockDriverState *bs, BlockDriver *drv,
>      bs->opaque = g_malloc0(drv->instance_size);
>  
>      assert(!drv->bdrv_needs_filename || bs->filename[0]);
> -    if (drv->bdrv_file_open) {
> +    if (drv->bdrv_open) {
>          ret = drv->bdrv_file_open(bs, options, open_flags, &local_err);
>      } else if (drv->bdrv_open) {
>          ret = drv->bdrv_open(bs, options, open_flags, &local_err);

I suppose you mean drv->protocol_name for the first if condition?

The bug will disappear again after patch 3, but this intermediate state
is very broken.

Kevin