On 26/01/2015 22:13, Max Reitz wrote: >>> >> An eject blocker would also break backwards-compatibility though. What >> about an eject notifier? Would that concept make sense? > > It does make sense (in that it is the way I would implement "just do > what we always did"), but I just don't like it for the fact that it > makes NBD a special snowflake. I can live with it, though.
Yes, it's weird. But this is just the backwards-compatible solution. I'm okay with implementing only the new solution, but: - the old QMP (and HMP?) commands must be removed - the new command probably must not reuse the same BB as the guest, and I am not sure that this is possible. Paolo
