From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:43492) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UVMaa-0008Ex-3F for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:52:00 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UVMaV-0007im-9A for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:51:55 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59789) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UVMaU-0007hm-WE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:51:51 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:51:47 -0400 From: Luiz Capitulino Message-ID: <20130425095147.75b90841@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20130422135343.GF21317@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> References: <1366393639-20651-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com> <20130422135343.GF21317@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/2] block: fix spurious DEVICE_TRAY_MOVED events on shutdown List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, phrdina@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, armbru@redhat.com On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:53:43 +0200 Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 01:47:17PM -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This fixes a regression introduced by commit 9ca111544, as detailed in > > patch 2/2, by moving bdrv_dev_change_media_cb() calls to callers of > > bdrv_close() that need it, as suggested by Kevin. > > > > Luiz Capitulino (2): > > block: make bdrv_dev_change_media_cb() public > > block: move bdrv_dev_change_media_cb() to callers that really need it > > > > block.c | 5 +---- > > blockdev.c | 2 ++ > > include/block/block.h | 1 + > > 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > Looks okay but I'll wait for Markus or Kevin to review too. The media > change code is subtle, we've had a long history of fixes :). I wouldn't say this is hugely important, but I'm targeting 1.5. So, maybe lack of review means you could apply it? :)