On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 06:12:34PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Block devices have an individual active state, a single global flag > can't cover this correctly. This becomes more important as we allow > users to manually manage which nodes are active or inactive. > > Now that it's allowed to call bdrv_inactivate_all() even when some > nodes are already inactive, we can remove the flag and just
Is this commit out of order with 5/15 that removes the assertion failure for inactivating an already-inactive device? But in the long run, the sentiment is correct, even if the wording is inaccurate for a window of a couple of patches, so I'm not sure it is worth a slight rewording to s/it's allows/it will soon be allowed/. > unconditionally call bdrv_inactivate_all() and, more importantly, > bdrv_activate_all() before we make use of the nodes. > > Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> > --- > migration/migration.h | 3 --- > migration/block-active.c | 46 ---------------------------------------- > migration/migration.c | 8 ------- > 3 files changed, 57 deletions(-) > Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. Virtualization: qemu.org | libguestfs.org
