Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> writes: > Am 21.02.2012 16:56, schrieb Markus Armbruster: >> Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> writes: [...] >>> Maybe we need to introduce something outside of the whole stack, an >>> entity that is referred to by the device (as in IDE, virtio-blk, ...) >>> and that refers to a stack of top-level listeners (which would be moved >>> to the new top-level BlockSource on live snapshot) and to the first >>> BlockSource (which can have more listeners, and those would stick with >>> the same BlockSource even if moves down the chain). >> >> The top-level BDS is already special. I think it makes sense to factor >> out the specialness into a "block backend" type, and let it point to a >> non-special block driver instance (root of a tree of block driver >> instances, in general). > > I think this is what I meant.
Then we're in violent agreement :) >>> Oh, and just to open another can of worms: We should probably design in >>> the notion of media (which can be ejected etc.) and drives (which always >>> stay there). We don't have a clean separation today. >> >> The "closed BDS means no media" thing works, but it's odd. > > I'm more talking about data that belongs to the media, like geometry. > This came up recently with Hervé's floppy patches. Is geometry relevant to anything but floppies and really small disks being accessed via really old interfaces?
