Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com> writes: > On 17.02.2016 17:20, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> Am 17.02.2016 um 16:41 hat Max Reitz geschrieben: >>> On 17.02.2016 11:53, Kevin Wolf wrote: >>>> Am 16.02.2016 um 19:08 hat Max Reitz geschrieben: >>>>> The monitor does hold references to some BlockBackends so it should have >>>> >>>> s/does hold/holds/? >>> >>> It was intentional, so I'd keep it unless you drop the question mark. >> >> For me it seems to imply something like "contrary to your expectations", >> but maybe that's just my non-native English needing a fix. >> >> I don't find it surprising anyway that the monitor holds BB references.
Me neither. > The contrast I tried to point out is that while we do have these > references in theory, and they are reflected by a refcount, too, we do > not actually have these references because the monitor does not yet have > a list of the BBs it owns. Oh yes, it has. It's just outsources their actual storage to block-backend.c, but that's detail. > So it's not an "emphasize the verb because it may be contrary to your > expectations", but an "emphasize it because it is contrary to what the > current code does" (which is not actually referencing these BBs). I disagree :) > Like: It is supposed to have references. It says it does. But it > actually doesn't. It does "hold" them, however, because they are > accounted for in the BBs' refcounts. [...]