From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47506) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XYvC4-0004Yk-Ig for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Sep 2014 07:02:14 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XYvBy-0007Wo-EP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Sep 2014 07:02:08 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:7154) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XYvBy-0007VF-84 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Sep 2014 07:02:02 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 13:01:51 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20140930110151.GF3943@noname.str.redhat.com> References: <1410891148-28849-1-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> <1410891148-28849-24-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1410891148-28849-24-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 23/23] block: Make device model's references to BlockBackend strong List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: mreitz@redhat.com, famz@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com, benoit.canet@nodalink.com Am 16.09.2014 um 20:12 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben: > Doesn't make a difference just yet, but it's the right thing to do. > > Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster > --- > block/block-backend.c | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/block/block-backend.c b/block/block-backend.c > index d49c988..5646628 100644 > --- a/block/block-backend.c > +++ b/block/block-backend.c > @@ -253,6 +253,7 @@ int blk_attach_dev(BlockBackend *blk, void *dev) > if (blk->dev) { > return -EBUSY; > } > + blk_ref(blk); > blk->dev = dev; > bdrv_iostatus_reset(blk->bs); > > @@ -281,9 +282,10 @@ void blk_detach_dev(BlockBackend *blk, void *dev) > /* TODO change to DeviceState *dev when all users are qdevified */ > { > assert(blk->dev == dev); > - blk->dev = NULL; > blk->dev_ops = NULL; > blk->dev_opaque = NULL; > + blk->dev = NULL; Is the move of blk->dev intentional or a rebase artifact? > + blk_unref(blk); > bdrv_set_guest_block_size(blk->bs, 512); > qemu_coroutine_adjust_pool_size(-COROUTINE_POOL_RESERVATION); > } hw/sd/sd.c calls blk_attach_dev_nofail(), but never detaches the BB again. The reference count will therefore never become zero. Probably okay for a device that isn't unpluggable, bdrv_close_all() should still do everything that is important for a clean shutdown. Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf