On 23.10.2015 15:39, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 21.10.2015 um 15:47 hat Max Reitz geschrieben: >> On 21.10.2015 13:49, Alberto Garcia wrote: >>> On Mon 19 Oct 2015 05:53:37 PM CEST, Max Reitz wrote: >>>> And a helper function for that, which directly takes a pointer to the >>>> BDS to be inserted instead of its node-name (which will be used for >>>> implementing 'change' using blockdev-insert-medium). >>> >>> Shouldn't this update bdrv_states? >> >> I hate bdrv_states. >> >> Yes, it should. Thanks! > > Once your reimplement blk_set_bs() on top of blk_insert/remove_bs(), > this logic would replace the code in change_parent_backing_link(). > > Of course, I left the list update in block.c for a reason, it's meant to > be an internal data structure, so your code accessing it from outside > won't be much nicer. Do we actually still need bdrv_states or can we get > rid of it in a follow-up series? If so, I wouldn't mind an ugly > intermediate state.
I do get rid of it in "blockdev: Further BlockBackend work"* (the final patch of that series). Max * http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-block/2015-02/msg00021.html
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
