On 05/11/2015 18:37, Max Reitz wrote:
> $ x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64 -qmp stdio \ -drive
> if=none,file=test.qcow2,id=drive0,node-name=node0 {"QMP":
> {"version": {"qemu": {"micro": 50, "minor": 4, "major": 2},
> "package": ""}, "capabilities": []}}
> {'execute':'qmp_capabilities'} {"return": {}}
> {'execute':'drive-backup','arguments':{'device':'drive0','target':'out.qcow2','format':'qcow2','sync':'none'}}
>
>
Formatting 'out.qcow2', fmt=qcow2 size=67108864 backing_file=test.qcow2
> backing_fmt=qcow2 encryption=off cluster_size=65536
> lazy_refcounts=off refcount_bits=16 {"return": {}}
> {'execute':'eject','arguments':{'device':'drive0'}} {"error":
> {"class": "GenericError", "desc": "Node 'drive0' is busy: block
> device is in use by block job: backup"}}
>
> So... Nobody does it, but apparently nobody has to because you
> cannot eject (to be more specific: use blockdev-remove-medium) a
> BDS from a BB while a block job is running on the BDS.
If you test it with all jobs, then it's okay. It's a regression, but
not introduced by your patch and apparently nobody noticed.
Even if nobody noticed, I wonder if this "Node 'foo' is busy" kind of
error deserves its own ErrorClass. Eric, what do you think?
Paolo
