From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41956) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YFr70-0005dQ-G4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 16:22:23 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YFr6x-0004Jy-0X for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 16:22:22 -0500 Received: from mail-wi0-x22b.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b]:53988) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YFr6w-0004Js-Qa for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 16:22:18 -0500 Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id l15so719672wiw.4 for ; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 13:22:18 -0800 (PST) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <54C6B006.9000607@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 22:22:14 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1422300468-16216-1-git-send-email-mreitz@redhat.com> <1422300468-16216-5-git-send-email-mreitz@redhat.com> <54C6A622.9010902@redhat.com> <54C6A6E4.8060000@redhat.com> <54C6AD3D.60808@redhat.com> <54C6AE02.4030105@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <54C6AE02.4030105@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/21] block: Add bdrv_close_all() handlers List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Max Reitz , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Kevin Wolf , Markus Armbruster , Stefan Hajnoczi On 26/01/2015 22:13, Max Reitz wrote: >>> >> An eject blocker would also break backwards-compatibility though. What >> about an eject notifier? Would that concept make sense? > > It does make sense (in that it is the way I would implement "just do > what we always did"), but I just don't like it for the fact that it > makes NBD a special snowflake. I can live with it, though. Yes, it's weird. But this is just the backwards-compatible solution. I'm okay with implementing only the new solution, but: - the old QMP (and HMP?) commands must be removed - the new command probably must not reuse the same BB as the guest, and I am not sure that this is possible. Paolo