On 3 August 2011 18:38, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: > andrzej zaborowski <balr...@gmail.com> writes: >> 2. if the >> underlaying storage can disappear for any other reason if that's >> possible to check. > > bdrv_is_removable() *isn't* such a check.
Obviously I wasn't claiming it is, just that it might be useful, but not necessrily possible. After all pretty much any storage can be "ejected" with enough force, depending on how far you want to go. >>> What's wrong with that again? All sounds sensible to me. >> >> I'm not claiming otherwise, just double-checking this is what you want. So first you said you had a problem with _is_removable, and then you said nothing was wrong with the implementation you outlined, plase make up your mind. Cheers Cheers
