Am 30.01.2025 um 20:50 hat Eric Blake geschrieben: > 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?
It is. Looks like I moved things around a bit too much in this series. 5/15 doesn't seem to depend on anything else,m so I'll move it before this one to fix the ordering. Kevin > 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 >
