From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56339) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ai3oB-00041r-EX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:40:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ai3o8-0004Q1-N8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:40:03 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42099) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ai3o8-0004Px-Eh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:40:00 -0400 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFC8015554 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:39:59 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 18:39:57 +0100 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20160321173957.GC4985@noname.redhat.com> References: <1456151945-11225-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1456151945-11225-4-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <87k2kvzu0z.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <56F01F8A.2090902@redhat.com> <87shzj68n2.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87shzj68n2.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/3] block: remove legacy_dinfo at blk_detach_dev time List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: Paolo Bonzini , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Max Reitz Am 21.03.2016 um 18:30 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben: > Paolo Bonzini writes: > > > On 21/03/2016 17:15, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> * Explicitly with x-blockdev-del > >> > >> Fails unless no other reference exists. Where is the legacy_dinfo > >> released? > > > > Can a -drive block device be deleted with x-blockdev-del even?!? > > When I wrote my review, I forgot that I expect x-blockdev-del to accept > only backends created with blockdev-add. With that, my question is > indeed moot. > > However, I've now tested my expectation, and it turned out to be wrong. > I'm inclined to call that a bug. Yes. > > Shall I add a check to x-blockdev-del that gives an error if the > > BlockBackend has a DriveInfo attached? > > Yes, please. But do double-check with Kevin & Max, who might have > different ideas on blockdev-add/del than I do. I'm pretty sure that I said that failing on -drive/drive_add created BlockBackends was a requirement for x-blockdev-del. Apparently I failed to catch the bug in the review then. So go ahead and let's fix it now. Kevin