[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-block] does blk_commit_all need blk_all_next?

From: Max Reitz
Subject: Re: [Qemu-block] does blk_commit_all need blk_all_next?
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:12:48 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0

On 24.10.2016 10:45, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> blk_commit_all is in block/block-backend.c only because it uses
> blk_all_next.  This is also the only reason why it needs a stub
> (stubs/blk-commit-all.c).
> The only difference between blk_next and blk_all_next is that the latter
> "iterates over all BlockBackends, even the ones which are hidden (i.e.
> are not referenced by the monitor)".  Should blk_commit_all really
> iterate over BlockBackends such as the NBD server or the block jobs'?

I guess bdrv_commit_all() did, so blk_commit_all() does now, too.

The issue is, though, that currently "hidden BB" is equivalent to
"anonymous BB". And I think that Kevin is working towards basically all
BBs being anonymous, i.e. hidden.

When using -drive without id but with node-name, then you'll get a
hidden BB. So we can't get away without blk_all_next().

But maybe it would make sense to skip all BBs that are not attached to a


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]