Re: [PATCH v3 12/33] block: Unify bdrv_child_cb_detach()

[Max Reitz]

On 06.05.20 14:41, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 18.02.2020 um 13:42 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
>> Make bdrv_child_cb_detach() call bdrv_backing_detach() for children with
>> a COW role (and drop the reverse call from bdrv_backing_detach()), so it
>> can be used for any child (with a proper role set).
>>
>> Because so far no child has a proper role set, we need a temporary new
>> callback for child_backing.detach that ensures bdrv_backing_detach() is
>> called for all COW children that do not have their role set yet.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <address@hidden>
>> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>  block.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
>>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/block.c b/block.c
>> index 3cf1293a7b..0f24546863 100644
>> --- a/block.c
>> +++ b/block.c
>> @@ -943,6 +943,7 @@ static void bdrv_child_cb_drained_end(BdrvChild *child,
>>  }
>>  
>>  static void bdrv_backing_attach(BdrvChild *c);
>> +static void bdrv_backing_detach(BdrvChild *c);
> 
> This series leaves a few static forward declarations behind, and even
> in the middle of the code rather than at the top.
> 
> Does anything stop us from adding bdrv_inherited_options() after all the
> old functions instead? This will require a temporary forward
> declaration, too, but it can go away at the end of the series when there
> is only child_of_bds left.

Personally, I have nothing against forward declarations, although they
probably should reside at the top, yes.

I suppose I can indeed just put the whole code after all the current
code (i.e., behind child_backing), though.

Max

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature