On Fri 26 Feb 2016 09:58:54 AM CET, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> I think your case is reasonable, but it's not the only way to get >> into this situation. See for example this one: >> >> blockdev-add 'drive0', 'node0' >> blockdev-add 'node1' >> blockdev-snapshot node='node0' overlay='node1' >> >> Now you have 'drive0' with 'node0' <- 'node1'. >> >> You cannot simply remove 'drive0', you need to eject 'node1' first >> and then you can remove 'drive0' and 'node1'. > > I think this is even more a reason not to introduce any magic but to > require that node and BB be removed separately. Otherwise it will > become really confusing to track for management software which node is > supposed to automatically go away and which isn't.
Note that with this patch you still need to remove the node and the BB separately, it only spares you to eject a node that was not explicitly inserted in the first place. That said, I think Max's example convinced me that this is not as clear as I initially thought, so if you're not convinced either I have no problem to withdraw the patch. Thanks, Berto
