Re: [PATCH v2 03/15] migration/block-active: Remove global active flag

[Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>]

Am 30.01.2025 um 20:50 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 06:12:34PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Block devices have an individual active state, a single global flag
> > can't cover this correctly. This becomes more important as we allow
> > users to manually manage which nodes are active or inactive.
> > 
> > Now that it's allowed to call bdrv_inactivate_all() even when some
> > nodes are already inactive, we can remove the flag and just
> 
> Is this commit out of order with 5/15 that removes the assertion
> failure for inactivating an already-inactive device?

It is. Looks like I moved things around a bit too much in this series.
5/15 doesn't seem to depend on anything else,m so I'll move it before
this one to fix the ordering.

Kevin

> But in the long run, the sentiment is correct, even if the wording is
> inaccurate for a window of a couple of patches, so I'm not sure it is
> worth a slight rewording to s/it's allows/it will soon be allowed/.
> 
> > unconditionally call bdrv_inactivate_all() and, more importantly,
> > bdrv_activate_all() before we make use of the nodes.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  migration/migration.h    |  3 ---
> >  migration/block-active.c | 46 ----------------------------------------
> >  migration/migration.c    |  8 -------
> >  3 files changed, 57 deletions(-)
> >
> 
> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
> 
> -- 
> Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
> Red Hat, Inc.
> Virtualization:  qemu.org | libguestfs.org
>