Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 44/55] spitz tosa: Simplify "drive is suitable for microdrive" test

[Markus Armbruster]

andrzej zaborowski <address@hidden> writes:

> On 20 July 2011 18:24, Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> 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".
>>
>> The only way to create such a drive with -drive if=ide is media=cdrom.
>> And that sets dinfo->media_cd, so just test that.
>
> This is a less generic test and more prone to be broken inadvertently,
> so it seems like a step back.  What's the argument against the
> convoluted and explicit test?

My motivation for changing it was to reduce the uses of BlockDriverState
member removable prior to nuking it from orbit [PATCH 45/55].

I consider my change an improvement, because I find "dinfo->media_cd"
clearer than
"bdrv_is_inserted(dinfo->bdrv) && !bdrv_is_removable(dinfo->bdrv)".

Moreover, it's the only place that uses bdrv_is_removable() to test
whether the block driver supports media eject.  All the other places use
dinfo->media_cd: hw/scsi-disk.c hw/xen_devconfig.c hw/ide/core.c
hw/ide/qdev.c.  Can't see why spitz & tosa need to check the same thing
differently, and why it's worth keeping bdrv_is_removable() around just
for that.