From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:49643) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T4St4-0003xg-Rj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 04:35:39 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T4Ssy-0006S4-GA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 04:35:34 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:63486) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T4Ssy-0006Qe-86 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 04:35:28 -0400 Message-ID: <5035EB36.40807@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:35:02 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1345604562-27289-1-git-send-email-qemulist@gmail.com> <5034CA4C.7020706@redhat.com> <877gsqlw96.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <5035475A.5070409@redhat.com> <87628a4nb1.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <503556B8.3040109@redhat.com> <87mx1mo8iy.fsf@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <87mx1mo8iy.fsf@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qom: removal of link property need to release its target List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Liu Ping Fan , Liu Ping Fan , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Il 23/08/2012 00:40, Anthony Liguori ha scritto: > I don't really like the notion of a "forced eject" where we delete a > device when the guest is using it and not cooperative. I don't see the > benefit at all. > > Forcing detachment of a BlockDriverState from a device followed by EIO > being reported to the guest for all I/O ops makes sense to me. But not > forced removal of virtio-blk-pci. PCI express even has support for detecting surprise removal early (with card presence detection pins, that break contact before others) and remove power before damaging the hardware. It's very much a real thing. You could surprise-remove an assigned card from under the feet of a non-cooperating guest, for example. Paolo