Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [PATCH] block: Don't lock /dev/null and /dev/zero automatically

[Fam Zheng]

On Thu, 07/19 13:57, John Snow wrote:
> Should we instead modify the test in this case to not attempt to take a
> lock on a device we know cannot meaningfully store state, or is it your
> preference to attempt to maintain such a list in the raw driver itself?
> 
> I guess we never want QEMU to try to lock things like /dev/zero, but I
> don't know if there are more such pseudo-devices we should never try to
> lock and if so, what common property unifies them such that we don't
> have to maintain a list.

They are 0 sized anyway so I only expect them to be used in test cases like the
one we're fixing. So this really doesn't matter.  An exceptional one would be
/dev/nullb* but that is not used in real world either.

I'm not trying to maintain a complete list (e.g. /dev/urandom and /dev/nullb*
are missing), this patch is just trying to make writing test code easier.

Fam