Am 09.08.2011 13:56, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
> bdrv_is_locked() is about the frontend's media lock. To make this more
> obvious, my PATCH 29/55 replaces it by bdrv_dev_is_medium_locked(). It
> does *not* query the backend's lock (which may not even exist!) set by
> bdrv_set_locked().
This sou
Kevin Wolf writes:
> Am 09.08.2011 06:32, schrieb andrzej zaborowski:
>> On 4 August 2011 10:02, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> Am 03.08.2011 22:20, schrieb andrzej zaborowski:
On 3 August 2011 20:24, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> andrzej zaborowski writes:
>> On 3 August 2011 18:38, Markus A
Am 09.08.2011 14:36, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
> Kevin Wolf writes:
>
>> Am 09.08.2011 13:56, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
>>> bdrv_is_locked() is about the frontend's media lock. To make this more
>>> obvious, my PATCH 29/55 replaces it by bdrv_dev_is_medium_locked(). It
>>> does *not* query th
Kevin Wolf writes:
> Am 09.08.2011 13:56, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
>> bdrv_is_locked() is about the frontend's media lock. To make this more
>> obvious, my PATCH 29/55 replaces it by bdrv_dev_is_medium_locked(). It
>> does *not* query the backend's lock (which may not even exist!) set by
>> b
Am 09.08.2011 06:32, schrieb andrzej zaborowski:
> On 4 August 2011 10:02, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Am 03.08.2011 22:20, schrieb andrzej zaborowski:
>>> On 3 August 2011 20:24, Markus Armbruster wrote:
andrzej zaborowski writes:
> On 3 August 2011 18:38, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> and
On 4 August 2011 10:02, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 03.08.2011 22:20, schrieb andrzej zaborowski:
>> On 3 August 2011 20:24, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> andrzej zaborowski writes:
On 3 August 2011 18:38, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> andrzej zaborowski writes:
>>
andrzej zaborowski writes:
> On 3 August 2011 20:24, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> andrzej zaborowski writes:
>>> On 3 August 2011 18:38, Markus Armbruster wrote:
andrzej zaborowski writes:
> 2. if the
> underlaying storage can d
Am 03.08.2011 22:20, schrieb andrzej zaborowski:
> On 3 August 2011 20:24, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> andrzej zaborowski writes:
>>> On 3 August 2011 18:38, Markus Armbruster wrote:
andrzej zaborowski writes:
> 2. if the
> under
On 3 August 2011 20:24, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> andrzej zaborowski writes:
>> On 3 August 2011 18:38, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> andrzej zaborowski writes:
2. if the
underlaying storage can disappear for any other reason if tha
andrzej zaborowski writes:
> On 3 August 2011 18:38, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> andrzej zaborowski writes:
>>> 2. if the
>>> underlaying storage can disappear for any other reason if that's
>>> possible to check.
>>
>> bdrv_is_removable() *i
On 3 August 2011 18:38, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> andrzej zaborowski 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
andrzej zaborowski writes:
> On 3 August 2011 15:28, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> andrzej zaborowski writes:
>>
>>> On 3 August 2011 10:12, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Peter Maydell writes:
> On 1 August 2011 13:33, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> andrzej zaborowski writes:
>>
On 3 August 2011 15:28, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> andrzej zaborowski writes:
>
>> On 3 August 2011 10:12, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> Peter Maydell writes:
>>>
On 1 August 2011 13:33, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> andrzej zaborowski writes:
>> On 20 July 2011 18:24, Markus Armbrus
andrzej zaborowski writes:
> On 3 August 2011 10:12, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Peter Maydell writes:
>>
>>> On 1 August 2011 13:33, Markus Armbruster wrote:
andrzej zaborowski writes:
> On 20 July 2011 18:24, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> We try the drive defined with -drive if=
On 3 August 2011 10:12, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Peter Maydell writes:
>
>> On 1 August 2011 13:33, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> andrzej zaborowski writes:
On 20 July 2011 18:24, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> We try the drive defined with -drive if=ide,index=0 (or equivalent
> suga
Peter Maydell writes:
> On 1 August 2011 13:33, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> andrzej zaborowski writes:
>>> On 20 July 2011 18:24, Markus Armbruster wrote:
We try the drive defined with -drive if=ide,index=0 (or equivalent
sugar). We use it only if (dinfo && bdrv_is_inserted(dinfo->b
On 1 August 2011 13:33, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> andrzej zaborowski writes:
>> On 20 July 2011 18:24, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> We try the drive defined with -drive if=ide,index=0 (or equivalent
>>> sugar). We use it only if (dinfo && bdrv_is_inserted(dinfo->bdrv) &&
>>> !bdrv_is_removable
andrzej zaborowski writes:
> On 20 July 2011 18:24, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> We try the drive defined with -drive if=ide,index=0 (or equivalent
>> sugar). We use it only if (dinfo && bdrv_is_inserted(dinfo->bdrv) &&
>> !bdrv_is_removable(dinfo->bdrv)). This is a convoluted way to test
>> fo
On 20 July 2011 18:24, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> We try the drive defined with -drive if=ide,index=0 (or equivalent
> sugar). We use it only if (dinfo && bdrv_is_inserted(dinfo->bdrv) &&
> !bdrv_is_removable(dinfo->bdrv)). This is a convoluted way to test
> for "drive media can't be removed".
>
We try the drive defined with -drive if=ide,index=0 (or equivalent
sugar). We use it only if (dinfo && bdrv_is_inserted(dinfo->bdrv) &&
!bdrv_is_removable(dinfo->bdrv)). This is a convoluted way to test
for "drive media can't be removed".
The only way to create such a drive with -drive if=ide is
20 matches
Mail list logo
