Am 10.09.2014 um 13:34 hat Benoît Canet geschrieben:
> The Wednesday 10 Sep 2014 à 10:13:31 (+0200), Markus Armbruster wrote :
> > A block device consists of a frontend device model and a backend.
> >
> > A block backend has a tree of block drivers doing the actual work.
> > The tree is managed by the block layer.
> >
> > We currently use a single abstraction BlockDriverState both for tree
> > nodes and the backend as a whole. Drawbacks:
> >
> > * Its API includes both stuff that makes sense only at the block
> > backend level (root of the tree) and stuff that's only for use
> > within the block layer. This makes the API bigger and more complex
> > than necessary. Moreover, it's not obvious which interfaces are
> > meant for device models, and which really aren't.
> >
> > * Since device models keep a reference to their backend, the backend
> > object can't just be destroyed. But for media change, we need to
> > replace the tree. Our solution is to make the BlockDriverState
> > generic, with actual driver state in a separate object, pointed to
> > by member opaque. That lets us replace the tree by deinitializing
> > and reinitializing its root. This special need of the root makes
> > the data structure awkward everywhere in the tree.
> >
> > The general plan is to separate the APIs into "block backend", for use
> > by device models, monitor and whatever other code dealing with block
> > backends, and "block driver", for use by the block layer and whatever
> > other code (if any) dealing with trees and tree nodes.
> >
> > Code dealing with block backends, device models in particular, should
> > become completely oblivious of BlockDriverState. This should let us
> > clean up both APIs, and the tree data structures.
> >
> > This commit is a first step. It creates a minimal "block backend"
> > API: type BlockBackend and functions to create, destroy and find them.
> > BlockBackend objects are created and destroyed, but not yet used for
> > anything; that'll come shortly.
> >
> > BlockBackend is reference-counted. Its reference count never exceeds
> > one so far, but that's going to change.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com>
> > +/**
> > + * blk_ref:
> > + *
> > + * Increment @blk's reference count.
> > + */
> > +void blk_ref(BlockBackend *blk)
> > +{
>
> if blk_unref you take care of doing
> + if (blk) {
> to make sur the user does not pass a NULL pointer.
> Transforming blk into a NULL pointer is not a side effect
> of blk_unref so this test is designed to prevent a user
> brain damage.
Not really, I'd rather consider it a convenience feature, just like
you're allowed to call free(NULL) or bdrv_unref(NULL) without having a
check for != NULL everywhere. This will be handy especially in error
paths.
> If the user can be brain damaged to pass a NULL to blk_unref he
> could be equally stupid passing a NULL to blk_ref.
> Why not adding the same test here ?
Whereas in blk_ref() it really wouldn't make any sense.
Kevin
