On Wed, 03/15 11:52, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 14.03.2017 um 03:30 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben: > > bdrv_child_set_perm alone is not very usable because the caller must > > call bdrv_child_check_perm first. > > Well, you can imagine use cases where you want to check multiple > children first and then set or abort all of them, but apparently we > haven't found such a case yet, so I'm fine with making the functions > private for now. If we ever need it, making them public again is > trivial.
Yes, no problem with that use case but by then I suppose we should also add an assertion about the calling sequence: e.g. in image locking, raw_set_perm goes nut if not preceded by `raw_check_perm. > > > This is already encapsulated > > conveniently in bdrv_child_try_set_perm, so remove the other prototypes > > from the header and fix the one wrong caller, block/mirror.c. > > > > Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng <f...@redhat.com> > > Thanks, applied to the block branch. Thanks! Fam > > Kevin
