On 17.03.2016 14:44, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 16.03.2016 um 19:54 hat Max Reitz geschrieben: >> This series appears to reinvent itself with every revision. This time, >> its main implication is that BBs are no longer automatically treated as >> monitor-owned, and that a BB's name is tightly tied to the monitor >> reference (it is considered equivalent to that reference). > > Thanks, applied to the block branch.
Great. :-) >> v4: >> - blk_hide_on_behalf_of_hmp_drive_del() does a bit more than what >> monitor_remove_blk() does; namely, it invokes bdrv_make_anon() on the >> BDS. We should probably continue to do so. > > Probably not, removing the node-name of a BDS just because a BB > disappears certainly feels like a bug. Even more so now that node-names > are auto-generated and the general assumption is that all BDSes have > one. Yes, I meant in the sense of "It's what we did so far and I don't want to mess with it in this series". Max > But that's a preexisting problem, so we can fix it on top. > > Kevin >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature