From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:51481)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1RNPgQ-0000YR-Pa
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 08:56:22 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1RNPgP-0007XX-J9
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 08:56:18 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:31599)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1RNPgP-0007XG-BM
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 08:56:17 -0500
Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pA7DuFVM006315
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 08:56:15 -0500
Message-ID: <4EB7E37D.4070903@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 14:56:13 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1319540020-32484-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<1319540020-32484-7-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<m3wrbc131w.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
	<4EB7DEDE.4090809@redhat.com> <4EB7E1D8.5090007@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EB7E1D8.5090007@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 6/8] block: add eject request callback
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Cc: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 11/07/2011 02:49 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >  2. eject with -f should really never be needed, but it does whatever is
> >  needed to be able to follow up with a "change" command.  It turns out it
> >  is really "unlock" and "ask the guest to eject" combined, but that's the
> >  implementation, not the model.
>
> Does this give different results than just asking the guest to eject
> without forcefully unlocking? I would expect that a guest that responds
> to the eject request would also unlock the drive. In which case I think
> eject without -f should be enough?

Only if the guest is not buggy (e.g. locks the tray but stops polling 
for eject requests) and has not crashed.

Paolo