On 24.10.2016 10:45, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > blk_commit_all is in block/block-backend.c only because it uses > blk_all_next. This is also the only reason why it needs a stub > (stubs/blk-commit-all.c). > > The only difference between blk_next and blk_all_next is that the latter > "iterates over all BlockBackends, even the ones which are hidden (i.e. > are not referenced by the monitor)". Should blk_commit_all really > iterate over BlockBackends such as the NBD server or the block jobs'?
I guess bdrv_commit_all() did, so blk_commit_all() does now, too. The issue is, though, that currently "hidden BB" is equivalent to "anonymous BB". And I think that Kevin is working towards basically all BBs being anonymous, i.e. hidden. When using -drive without id but with node-name, then you'll get a hidden BB. So we can't get away without blk_all_next(). But maybe it would make sense to skip all BBs that are not attached to a device? Max
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
