On 04/12/2015 15:59, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> My comment makes two claims: "wrong" and "dangerous".
>
> First "dangerous". You're making a non-local argument why it's not
> actually broken, and you might be right. If you are, it's just fragile,
> not broken. We could debate whether to call
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 04/12/2015 15:07, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> We made it unavailable in commit 1910913 because its use of
>> drive_get_next() instead of a property. Commit 5ec911c replaced
>> drive_get_next() and made the device available, but the property isn't
>> quite right, and th
On 04/12/2015 15:07, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> We made it unavailable in commit 1910913 because its use of
> drive_get_next() instead of a property. Commit 5ec911c replaced
> drive_get_next() and made the device available, but the property isn't
> quite right, and the code dangerously ignores b
We made it unavailable in commit 1910913 because its use of
drive_get_next() instead of a property. Commit 5ec911c replaced
drive_get_next() and made the device available, but the property isn't
quite right, and the code dangerously ignores blk_attach_dev()
failure. Disable it again before the pr
