Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes: > On 23/03/2016 10:18, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>> In Kevin's idea there would be no ownership either way. Until then, I >>> think my patch actually gets us closer to the ideal. >> >> I'm afraid it gets us closer to where we used to be six years ago :) >> >> Qdev drive properties used to point to a DriveInfo, and the DriveInfo >> pointed to BlockDriverState. Commit f8b6cc0 cut out the DriveInfo >> middleman. This was a tiny step towards DriveInfo-less blockdev-add. >> >> DriveInfo is legacy configuration. Tacking it to BlockBackend is simple >> and convenient. If it ceases to be simple and convenient, we can try to >> find another home. But it really has no life of its own! > > I disagree; the life of DriveInfo is exactly the same as the -drive > QemuOpts. But anyway, with your idea of adding an unrealize callback to > the drive properties, I can move the extra reference within the device. > It should become cleaner.
I guess discussing the finer semantic points some more wouldn't be productive now. Instead, you do a v2, and then we'll see. Working code can make philosophical differences evaporate :) Okay?
