Hi David, "Woodhouse, David" <d...@amazon.co.uk> writes:
> On Wed, 2023-11-22 at 17:05 +0000, Paul Durrant wrote: >> On 21/11/2023 22:10, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >> > From: David Woodhouse <d...@amazon.co.uk> >> > >> > This allows a XenDevice implementation to know whether it was created >> > by QEMU, or merely discovered in XenStore after the toolstack created >> > it. This will allow us to create frontend/backend nodes only when we >> > should, rather than unconditionally attempting to overwrite them from >> > a driver domain which doesn't have privileges to do so. >> > >> > As an added benefit, it also means we no longer have to call the >> > xen_backend_set_device() function from the device models immediately >> > after calling qdev_realize_and_unref(). Even though we could make >> > the argument that it's safe to do so, and the pointer to the unreffed >> > device *will* actually still be valid, it still made my skin itch to >> > look at it. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <d...@amazon.co.uk> >> > --- >> > hw/block/xen-block.c | 3 +-- >> > hw/char/xen_console.c | 2 +- >> > hw/net/xen_nic.c | 2 +- >> > hw/xen/xen-bus.c | 4 ++++ >> > include/hw/xen/xen-backend.h | 2 -- >> > include/hw/xen/xen-bus.h | 2 ++ >> > 6 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> > >> >> Actually, I think you should probably update >> xen_backend_try_device_destroy() in this patch too. It currently uses >> xen_backend_list_find() to check whether the specified XenDevice has an >> associated XenBackendInstance. > > I think I did that in > https://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/qemu.git/commitdiff/94f1b474478ce0ede > but didn't get round to sending it out again because of travel. I can just pull it from this link, if you don't mind. -- WBR, Volodymyr
