From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46741) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bDY0I-0000vf-20 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:10:43 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bDY0F-0001CV-Vj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:10:40 -0400 References: <1466016055-31351-1-git-send-email-clord@redhat.com> <1466016055-31351-3-git-send-email-clord@redhat.com> <4e996d67-b092-4f42-bc1d-03ac5f3e5e98@redhat.com> <3363671b-2488-8a82-ea3c-82e24c9a031e@redhat.com> <5ab1035f-c3b4-1974-cb2d-db5c46ab9c56@redhat.com> From: Colin Lord Message-ID: <545ae5e6-6e1c-4532-9b75-7e8ce378cc01@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:10:31 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5ab1035f-c3b4-1974-cb2d-db5c46ab9c56@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] blockdev: Add dynamic module loading for block drivers List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, markmb@redhat.com, qemu-block@nongnu.org, mreitz@redhat.com On 06/16/2016 10:05 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 16/06/2016 16:00, Colin Lord wrote: >>>>> The only block drivers that can be converted into modules are the drivers >>>>> that don't perform any init operation except for registering themselves. This >>>>> is why libiscsi has been disabled as a module. >>> >>> I don't think it has in this patch :) but you can also move the >>> iscsi_opts registration to vl.c. >> >> Yeah I think Stefan mentioned this point in one of the earlier threads >> but he said to do it in a separate commit, which I took to mean I >> shouldn't include it here. Should I add it as a third part to this patch >> series or leave it for a completely separate commit? > > The patches in the series are left separate when including them in QEMU. > Therefore, a separate patch *is* (or will become :)) a separate commit. Yep, mostly just wasn't sure whether it was considered to be related enough to include with the other two. > > Therefore, putting the change before this patch, or alternatively as the > first patch in the series, will be fine. > > Thanks, > > Paolo > Sounds good, I'll work on putting that in the next version then. Colin