On Wed 23 Sep 2020 07:11:57 PM CEST, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: >> BlockDriverState *last_bs = include_base ? base : backing_bs(base); > > hmm, in case when include_base is false, last bs is not > backing_bs(base) but the parent of base.
Oops, yes, it should be the other way around %-) >> But why do we need include_base at all? Can't the caller just pass >> backing_bs(base) instead? I'm talking also about the existing case of >> bdrv_is_allocated_above(). > > include_base was introduced for the case when caller doesn't own > backing_bs(base), and therefore shouldn't do operations that may yield > (block_status can) dependent on backing_bs(base). In particular, in > block stream, where link to base is not frozen. You're right, thanks! Berto
