From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:41017) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QosqP-0001ZE-8T for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Aug 2011 03:59:53 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QosqO-0000Bh-8N for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Aug 2011 03:59:53 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:28045) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QosqN-0000Bd-V3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Aug 2011 03:59:52 -0400 Message-ID: <4E3A5221.3030407@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 10:02:41 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1311179069-27882-1-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> <1311179069-27882-45-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 44/55] spitz tosa: Simplify "drive is suitable for microdrive" test List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: andrzej zaborowski Cc: Peter Maydell , quintela@redhat.com, dbaryshkov@gmail.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster , amit.shah@redhat.com, lcapitulino@redhat.com Am 03.08.2011 22:20, schrieb andrzej zaborowski: > On 3 August 2011 20:24, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> andrzej zaborowski writes: >>> On 3 August 2011 18:38, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>>> andrzej zaborowski writes: >>>>> 2. if the >>>>> underlaying storage can disappear for any other reason if that's >>>>> possible to check. >>>> >>>> bdrv_is_removable() *isn't* such a check. >>> >>> Obviously I wasn't claiming it is, just that it might be useful, but >>> not necessrily possible. After all pretty much any storage can be >>> "ejected" with enough force, depending on how far you want to go. >>> >>>>>> What's wrong with that again? All sounds sensible to me. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not claiming otherwise, just double-checking this is what you want. >>> >>> So first you said you had a problem with _is_removable, and then you >>> said nothing was wrong with the implementation you outlined, plase >>> make up your mind. >> >> I don't appreciate you quoting me out of context like that. > > I got quite annoyed when you started putting words in my mouth by > saying I said anything about CD-ROM.. the code in spitz/tosa is not > concerned with CD-ROMs even if downstream it boils down to that, it is > concerned with whether the device is removable or not, and that's what > the check does. It doesn't help readability or anything by inlining > that check. If you're trying to check for A then don't spell it out > as B, be explicit. It's not a big deal but I just don't see the > point, sorry. > >> >> The sentence you quoted was in the middle of my attempt to get you to >> explain what you're trying to accomplish there. > > I already said about 3 times what it's trying to acomplish. You also > have used the word "removable" so I'm sure you know what it means and > don't need further explanation. But let's define it this way: if a > GUI is going to display an "eject" button next to a drive in the qemu > device tree, that's a removable device. CD-ROM is an example of that. > An IDE HDD is an example of something that's not going to have that > button (I assume). But this is a property of the device, not of the backend. This means that it belongs in the device emulation and not in block.c. If you want to have a function spitz_microdrive_is_removable() or similar in the device model I don't really mind (even though I don't see the point), but the block layer is the wrong place for it. Kevin