Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 01/37] blockdev: Allow creation of BDS trees without BB

[Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>]

On 2015-02-09 at 13:17, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 02/09/2015 10:11 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> If the "id" field is missing from the options given to blockdev-add,
>> just omit the BlockBackend and create the BlockDriverState tree alone.
>>
>> However, if "id" is missing, "node-name" must be specified; otherwise,
>> the BDS tree would no longer be accessible.
>>
> Well, if we ever revived Jeff Cody's attempt at auto-assigning node
> names (so that we never have an unnamed node), then this patch will have
> to be partially reverted at that time (omitting id and node-name then
> results in a BDS with an auto-assigned node name and no BB).  But that's
> a decision for that series (if we ever revive it); for now, your policy
> is just fine.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>   blockdev.c                 | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>>   qapi/block-core.json       | 13 +++++++++----
>>   tests/qemu-iotests/087     |  2 +-
>>   tests/qemu-iotests/087.out |  4 ++--
>>   4 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
>
>
>> +++ b/qapi/block-core.json
>> @@ -1260,9 +1260,12 @@
>>   #
>>   # @driver:        block driver name
>>   # @id:            #optional id by which the new block device can be referred to.
>> -#                 This is a required option on the top level of blockdev-add, and
>> -#                 currently not allowed on any other level.
>> -# @node-name:     #optional the name of a block driver state node (Since 2.0)
>> +#                 This option is only allowed on the top level of blockdev-add.
>> +#                 A BlockBackend will be created by blockdev-add if and only if
>> +#                 this option is given.
> I know what you mean here, but it feels a tiny bit like we are leaking
> implementation details.  Would it be any better to state that: "A
> guest-visible device will be created by blockdev-add if and only if this
> option is given"?

Well, it's not a guest-visible device; a BlockBackend is the connector 
between a BDS tree and a guest-visible device.

However, I thought about the same thing, but there are already 
occurrences of "block driver state", so I decided to just go with it (I 
mean, we could use "block backend", but I don't know if that's really 
better).

Max

> That is, instead of BlockDriverState and BlockBackend
> (which are internal naming conventions), should our documentation be
> favoring "node within a tree of host-accessible resources that provide
> the media content to a guest device" and "guest-visible device"?  But
> just in typing that out, it gets tedious, and even if we do make such a
> change in documentation, it would be better to do it over all existing
> .json files rather than just this patch.  Furthermore, we may use
> BlockBackend for things like NBD fleecing operations, which really
> aren't guest-visible devices.  So my idle ramblings here don't affect my
> R-b for the patch as-is.