| Message ID | 1383836503-25447-3-git-send-email-benoit@irqsave.net |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 11/07/2013 08:01 AM, Benoît Canet wrote: > As node-name is a separate name space as device-name we can enable it's s/space as/space from/ s/it's/its/ > definition right now: nobody will use it so no harm involved. > > Signed-off-by: Benoit Canet <benoit@irqsave.net> > --- > block.c | 6 ++++-- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Shouldn't blockdev-add have a QMP counterpart for setting node name during device hotplug? Also, is there a QMP command for inspecting node names yet? This feels like a write-only interface if we don't have more usage of it in place. Don't get me wrong - I think we definitely want this, but in the context of a bigger series rather than by itself. > > diff --git a/block.c b/block.c > index 230e71a..132981f 100644 > --- a/block.c > +++ b/block.c > @@ -885,7 +885,8 @@ int bdrv_file_open(BlockDriverState **pbs, const char *filename, > options = qdict_new(); > } > > - bs = bdrv_new("", NULL); > + bs = bdrv_new("", qdict_get_try_str(options, "node-name")); > + qdict_del(options, "node-name"); > bs->options = options; > options = qdict_clone_shallow(options); > > @@ -1007,7 +1008,8 @@ int bdrv_open_backing_file(BlockDriverState *bs, QDict *options, Error **errp) > sizeof(backing_filename)); > } > > - bs->backing_hd = bdrv_new("", NULL); > + bs->backing_hd = bdrv_new("", qdict_get_try_str(options, "node-name")); > + qdict_del(options, "node-name"); > > if (bs->backing_format[0] != '\0') { > back_drv = bdrv_find_format(bs->backing_format); >
Am 07.11.2013 um 16:01 hat Benoît Canet geschrieben: > As node-name is a separate name space as device-name we can enable it's > definition right now: nobody will use it so no harm involved. > > Signed-off-by: Benoit Canet <benoit@irqsave.net> As Eric already said, we need to update the QAPI schema for the new field. We already have an 'id' field for each BlockDriverState, which is currently used as the device_name on the top level, and forbidden on other devices. What is our long-term plan with this? Should 'id' be for every node that must get a BlockBackend on top, and 'node-name' just for any node? We're mixing BDS and BB configuration here. It may be okay to do that, especially as long as BBs don't have more than just device_name to be configured, but we should at least be aware that we're doing it. Kevin
diff --git a/block.c b/block.c index 230e71a..132981f 100644 --- a/block.c +++ b/block.c @@ -885,7 +885,8 @@ int bdrv_file_open(BlockDriverState **pbs, const char *filename, options = qdict_new(); } - bs = bdrv_new("", NULL); + bs = bdrv_new("", qdict_get_try_str(options, "node-name")); + qdict_del(options, "node-name"); bs->options = options; options = qdict_clone_shallow(options); @@ -1007,7 +1008,8 @@ int bdrv_open_backing_file(BlockDriverState *bs, QDict *options, Error **errp) sizeof(backing_filename)); } - bs->backing_hd = bdrv_new("", NULL); + bs->backing_hd = bdrv_new("", qdict_get_try_str(options, "node-name")); + qdict_del(options, "node-name"); if (bs->backing_format[0] != '\0') { back_drv = bdrv_find_format(bs->backing_format);
As node-name is a separate name space as device-name we can enable it's definition right now: nobody will use it so no harm involved. Signed-off-by: Benoit Canet <benoit@irqsave.net> --- block.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)