From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=60426 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P9KCg-0003gO-JL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:10:53 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P9KCe-00005U-Na for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:10:50 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53903) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P9KCe-00004v-H8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:10:48 -0400 Message-ID: <4CC1B7AA.9090506@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 18:11:22 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/2] v3 Decouple block device removal from device removal References: <1287716153-25305-1-git-send-email-ryanh@us.ibm.com> <20101022134850.083085dd@doriath> In-Reply-To: <20101022134850.083085dd@doriath> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Luiz Capitulino Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster , Anthony Liguori , Ryan Harper , Stefan Hajnoczi , hch@lst.de Am 22.10.2010 17:48, schrieb Luiz Capitulino: > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:55:51 -0500 > Ryan Harper wrote: > >> This patch series decouples the detachment of a block device from the removal >> of the backing pci-device. Removal of a hotplugged pci device requires the >> guest to respond before qemu tears down the block device. In some cases, the >> guest may not respond leaving the guest with continued access to the block >> device. >> >> The new monitor command, drive_unplug, will revoke a guests access to the >> block device independently of the removal of the pci device. >> >> The first patch adds a new drive find method, the second patch implements the >> monitor command and block layer changes. > > Reviewed the monitor part, I think we're waiting for Kevin's and/or > Markus's ACK to get this merged? Yes, I'm waiting for Markus' comments before applying this. Maybe we shouldn't add this to QMP yet, drive_add doesn't exist there either because we want to do it right with blockdev_add/del. On the other hand Markus should know much better than me what the right thing would look like - if he says that this interface will work with whatever we're going to get with blockdev_*, I'm fine with merging it. Kevin