On 22.01.2016 15:01, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 08/01/2016 18:37, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> In short, this patch gets rid of blockdev_mark_auto_del and >> blockdev_auto_del. >> >> With these patches, it is possible to create a new -drive with the same >> id as soon as the DEVICE_DELETED event is delivered (which equals to >> unrealize). >> >> I'm sorry I'm not able to explain the history (and probably do not >> understand the full ramifications) of this. That's why this is just >> an RFC. >> >> The idea here is that reference counting the BlockBackend is enough to >> defer the deletion of the block device as much as necessary; anticipating >> the demise of the DriveInfo is not a problem, and has the desired effect >> of freeing the QemuOpts. >> >> Paolo >> >> Paolo Bonzini (2): >> block: detach devices from DriveInfo at unrealize time >> block: remove legacy_dinfo at blk_detach_dev time >> >> block/block-backend.c | 14 ++++++++---- >> blockdev.c | 26 ++++++++------------------ >> hw/block/virtio-blk.c | 4 +++- >> hw/block/xen_disk.c | 1 + >> hw/core/qdev-properties-system.c | 2 +- >> hw/ide/piix.c | 3 +++ >> hw/scsi/scsi-bus.c | 4 +++- >> hw/usb/dev-storage.c | 3 ++- >> include/sysemu/blockdev.h | 5 ++--- >> 9 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-) >> > > Ping? Any comments or other kinds of review? :)
I skimmed it last week and I remember that I found the idea sound and didn't have any objections; but that I didn't feel confident for a R-b or explicit comment, because I don't think I understand the full ramifications of it either. ;-) Max
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
