[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 44/55] spitz tosa: Simplify "drive is suitable f
From: |
Markus Armbruster |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 44/55] spitz tosa: Simplify "drive is suitable for microdrive" test |
Date: |
Mon, 01 Aug 2011 14:33:50 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) |
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.
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 44/55] spitz tosa: Simplify "drive is suitable for microdrive" test,
Markus Armbruster <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 44/55] spitz tosa: Simplify "drive is suitable for microdrive" test, Peter Maydell, 2011/08/01
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 44/55] spitz tosa: Simplify "drive is suitable for microdrive" test, Markus Armbruster, 2011/08/03
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 44/55] spitz tosa: Simplify "drive is suitable for microdrive" test, andrzej zaborowski, 2011/08/03
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 44/55] spitz tosa: Simplify "drive is suitable for microdrive" test, Markus Armbruster, 2011/08/03
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 44/55] spitz tosa: Simplify "drive is suitable for microdrive" test, andrzej zaborowski, 2011/08/03
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 44/55] spitz tosa: Simplify "drive is suitable for microdrive" test, Markus Armbruster, 2011/08/03
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 44/55] spitz tosa: Simplify "drive is suitable for microdrive" test, andrzej zaborowski, 2011/08/03
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 44/55] spitz tosa: Simplify "drive is suitable for microdrive" test, Markus Armbruster, 2011/08/03
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 44/55] spitz tosa: Simplify "drive is suitable for microdrive" test, andrzej zaborowski, 2011/08/03
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 44/55] spitz tosa: Simplify "drive is suitable for microdrive" test, Kevin Wolf, 2011/08/04