From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34016) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aW49i-0001Gs-AK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:36:45 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aW49c-0001nU-Jj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:36:42 -0500 References: <1455646106-2047-1-git-send-email-mreitz@redhat.com> <1455646106-2047-5-git-send-email-mreitz@redhat.com> <20160217102932.GC29494@noname.str.redhat.com> From: Max Reitz Message-ID: <56C4937D.9000600@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 16:36:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160217102932.GC29494@noname.str.redhat.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Hif4Qg1F22GiNPMsx2Tj5p9En5hjbpKVA" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 04/14] block: Add blk_name_taken() List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --Hif4Qg1F22GiNPMsx2Tj5p9En5hjbpKVA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 17.02.2016 11:29, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 16.02.2016 um 19:08 hat Max Reitz geschrieben: >> There may be BlockBackends which are not returned by blk_by_name(), bu= t >> do exist and have a name. >=20 > Really? And if so, isn't this a bug? Depends on your definition of what the name is. :-) As you said on IRC, denoting the monitor reference by that name seems reasonable, so in that case it would be wrong behavior indeed. > I expect that a BB is always either visible to the user and has a name > that is resolved to this BB everywhere, or it's entirely internal and > doesn't need a name therefore. >=20 > Having a BB that is internal and therefore invisble, but has a name and= > prevents the creation of another BB or BDS with the same name, must > certainly be confusing for the user. Yep, will change. Max >> blk_name_taken() allows testing whether a >> specific name is in use already, independent of whether the BlockBacke= nd >> with that name is accessible through blk_by_name(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz >=20 > Kevin >=20 --Hif4Qg1F22GiNPMsx2Tj5p9En5hjbpKVA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWxJN9AAoJEDuxQgLoOKytxhwH/3z+haYIPy3lVAL9ppBLtMxV yPgcdhBs3MrXltdm9ELrP3hqRamHt0cVTKs1jl14N0oBpRDoPva2YAB4QP6XcEEP wpoz+3s/O1rsC0mJRsRqVVsj4ztE6RUyje+2MTIRGGdirMm5+i/HN0nD78A3CJmU 6lyEG6Vt6MwcA5sKgBgdIwE+LEzDfWNmljET3MXAEGNzNfOx6Tk6rStDIlaIeDSL C5rKxvPCd71cPeYVq+tyI0QW4Q78Kavg3sx7mzXqFcG81NMPvNQomc01GKTea1eM 5tM28Mm2o2HUV86X4iJTm7Zw91slNIAFFxUSJVAeYhnb5Zv2X9riX/kdTd7/Y2A= =jcg7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Hif4Qg1F22GiNPMsx2Tj5p9En5hjbpKVA--