On Monday, October 24, 2016 8:12:48 PM, "Max Reitz" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
Yeah, it sounds like it shouldn't be blk_all_next() but another public API. Paolo
