From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=33547 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PDGs7-0003TS-Ht
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 09:25:56 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1PDGoh-0006cS-8I
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 09:22:24 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33560)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1PDGog-0006cJ-Tc
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 09:22:23 -0400
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 15:22:20 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/3] v4 Decouple block device removal from
	device removal
Message-ID: <20101102132220.GC29655@redhat.com>
References: <1288030956-28383-1-git-send-email-ryanh@us.ibm.com>
	<m3sjzpjdfo.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
	<20101029150336.GJ22904@us.ibm.com>
	<m34oc5dlou.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
	<20101029165044.GM22904@us.ibm.com>
	<m3tyk02hdb.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <m3tyk02hdb.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefan.hajnoczi@uk.ibm.com>, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Ryan Harper <ryanh@us.ibm.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>

On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 10:40:32AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> C. FOO_unplug
> 
>    You got a patch for drive_unplug.
> 
>    Need netdev_unplug.
> 
>    By the way, I hate "unplug", because it suggests relation to hot
>    unplug.  What about "disconnect"?

> Any preferences?

This implies that both parts stay on, just disconnected.
This is really surprise removal.  While we are at it, can we handle this
generically as removal of devices?

-- 
MST