On 13/10/20 19:17, Claudio Fontana wrote: >> This is definitely better, but I'll defer to Kevin with respect to the >> naming of the function; having a bdrv_* function that has nothing to do >> with the block layer is still smelly of a sub-optimal API, and I'm not >> sure why the API change belongs in the series. >> >> Paolo >> > Hi Paolo, > > I am not attached to the specific name, if someone has a better naming / > proposes a better prefix I will replace of course.
Can you just unbreak TCG in this series, and we can then revisit the topic of functional code in stubs later? Paolo
