Am 18.09.2015 um 17:22 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> This function associates the given BlockDriverState with the given
> BlockBackend.
>
> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Alberto Garcia <be...@igalia.com>
> ---
> block/block-backend.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> include/sysemu/block-backend.h | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/block/block-backend.c b/block/block-backend.c
> index 33145f8..652385e 100644
> --- a/block/block-backend.c
> +++ b/block/block-backend.c
> @@ -314,6 +314,22 @@ void blk_hide_on_behalf_of_hmp_drive_del(BlockBackend
> *blk)
> }
>
> /*
> + * Associates a new BlockDriverState with @blk.
> + */
> +void blk_insert_bs(BlockBackend *blk, BlockDriverState *bs)
> +{
> + if (bs->blk == blk) {
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + assert(!blk->bs);
> + assert(!bs->blk);
Why is it useful to allow reconnecting a BDS to a BB it's already
connected to? I would have expected that we can assert that this is not
the case.
> + bdrv_ref(bs);
> + blk->bs = bs;
> + bs->blk = blk;
> +}
My series to remove bdrv_swap() introduces a blk_set_bs() function,
which looks suspiciously similar to this one, except that it allows
passing a BB that already had a BDS (it gets unrefed then) and that I
don't assert that the BDS isn't attached to a BB yet (I should do that).
Do you think that's similar enough to have only one function?
Kevin
