On 17.02.2016 11:29, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 16.02.2016 um 19:08 hat Max Reitz geschrieben: >> There may be BlockBackends which are not returned by blk_by_name(), but >> do exist and have a name. > > Really? And if so, isn't this a bug?
Depends on your definition of what the name is. :-) As you said on IRC, denoting the monitor reference by that name seems reasonable, so in that case it would be wrong behavior indeed. > I expect that a BB is always either visible to the user and has a name > that is resolved to this BB everywhere, or it's entirely internal and > doesn't need a name therefore. > > Having a BB that is internal and therefore invisble, but has a name and > prevents the creation of another BB or BDS with the same name, must > certainly be confusing for the user. Yep, will change. Max >> blk_name_taken() allows testing whether a >> specific name is in use already, independent of whether the BlockBackend >> with that name is accessible through blk_by_name(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com> > > Kevin >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
