On 22/01/2016 23:38, Max Reitz wrote: > 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. ;-)
It has some failures after the latest block pull request. I'll see what's going on. Paolo
