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

[Peter Maydell]

On 1 August 2011 13:33, Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> wrote:
> 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)".

This seems like an argument for providing a bdrv_supports_eject()
or whatever we're actually trying to test for here. I kind of felt
the same way as Andrzej when I saw this patch going past but it
got lost in my mail folder...

-- PMM