Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v3 07/14] blockdev: Add list of monitor-owned BlockBackends

[Max Reitz]

On 17.02.2016 11:53, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 16.02.2016 um 19:08 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
>> The monitor does hold references to some BlockBackends so it should have
> 
> s/does hold/holds/?

It was intentional, so I'd keep it unless you drop the question mark.

>> a list of those BBs; blk_backends is a different list, as it contains
>> references to all BBs (after a follow-up patch, that is), and that
>> should not be changed because we do need such a list.
>>
>> monitor_remove_blk() is idempotent so that we can call it in
>> blockdev_auto_del() without having to care whether it had been called in
>> do_drive_del() before. monitor_add_blk() is idempotent for symmetry
>> reasons (monitor_remove_blk() is, so it would be strange for
>> monitor_add_blk() not to be).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <address@hidden>
> 
> I think hmp_drive_add() needs a monitor_remove_blk() in its error path.

You're right, thanks.

In addition, if we really do say that a BB having a name equals being
referenced by the monitor, then maybe we don't need explicit calls to
monitor_add_blk() because any BB that is created with a non-NULL name
should be automatically added to the list of monitor BBs.

But that would mean that qemu-img's, qemu-nbd's and qemu-io's BBs would
have to be monitor-owned, too, and they'd all have to call
monitor_remove_blk() all over the place... Unless we'd allow NULL BB
names now and make them use it (I don't really see a reason why not;
them calling their BBs "hda" seems weird anyway), or implicitly call
monitor_remove_blk() in blk_delete(). Or maybe both, because the latter
seems convenient anyway.

Max

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature