Am 15.03.2013 um 19:48 hat [email protected] geschrieben: > From: KONRAD Frederic <[email protected]> > > The configuration field must not be a pointer as it will be used for > virtio-blk > properties. So *blk is replaced by blk in VirtIOBlock structure. > > Signed-off-by: KONRAD Frederic <[email protected]> > Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <[email protected]> > --- > hw/virtio-blk.c | 8 ++++---- > hw/virtio-blk.h | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/virtio-blk.c b/hw/virtio-blk.c > index 6714b01..908c316 100644 > --- a/hw/virtio-blk.c > +++ b/hw/virtio-blk.c > @@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ static void virtio_blk_handle_scsi(VirtIOBlockReq *req) > */ > req->scsi = (void *)req->elem.in_sg[req->elem.in_num - 2].iov_base; > > - if (!req->dev->blk->scsi) { > + if (!req->dev->blk.scsi) { > status = VIRTIO_BLK_S_UNSUPP; > goto fail; > } > @@ -371,7 +371,7 @@ static void virtio_blk_handle_request(VirtIOBlockReq *req, > * terminated by '\0' only when shorter than buffer. > */ > strncpy(req->elem.in_sg[0].iov_base, > - s->blk->serial ? s->blk->serial : "", > + s->blk.serial ? s->blk.serial : "", > MIN(req->elem.in_sg[0].iov_len, VIRTIO_BLK_ID_BYTES)); > virtio_blk_req_complete(req, VIRTIO_BLK_S_OK); > g_free(req); > @@ -534,7 +534,7 @@ static uint32_t virtio_blk_get_features(VirtIODevice > *vdev, uint32_t features) > features |= (1 << VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE); > features |= (1 << VIRTIO_BLK_F_SCSI); > > - if (s->blk->config_wce) { > + if (s->blk.config_wce) { > features |= (1 << VIRTIO_BLK_F_CONFIG_WCE); > } > if (bdrv_enable_write_cache(s->bs)) > @@ -650,7 +650,7 @@ VirtIODevice *virtio_blk_init(DeviceState *dev, > VirtIOBlkConf *blk) > s->vdev.reset = virtio_blk_reset; > s->bs = blk->conf.bs; > s->conf = &blk->conf; > - s->blk = blk; > + memcpy(&(s->blk), blk, sizeof(struct VirtIOBlkConf));
Why not simply s->blk = *blk? The reason why copying this works is that blk is read-only after initialisation. We also get an additional reference to blk->serial, but we know that it can only go away after this device has been destroyed (the same assumption was necessary for the s->blk pointer in the old code). Is my understanding of this correct? Kevin
