Ryan Harper <ry...@us.ibm.com> writes: > * Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> [2010-11-05 08:28]: >> I'd be fine with any of these: >> >> 1. A new command "device_disconnet ID" (or similar name) to disconnect >> device ID from any host parts. Nice touch: you don't have to know >> about the device's host part(s) to disconnect it. But it might be >> more work than the other two. > > This is sort of what netdev_del() and drive_unplug() are today; we're > just saying sever the connection of this device id.
No, I have netdev_del as (3). All three options are "sort of" the same, just different commands with a common purpose. > I'd like to rename drive_unplug() to blockdev_del() and call it done. I > was looking at libvirt and the right call to netdev_del is already > in-place; I'd just need to re-spin my block patch to call blockdev_del() > after invoking device_del() to match what is done for net. Unless I'm missing something, you can't just rename: your unplug does not delete the host part. >> 2. New commands netdev_disconnect, drive_disconnect (or similar names) >> to disconnect a host part from a guest device. Like (1), except you >> have to point to the other end of the connection to cut it. > > What's the advantage here? We need an additional piece of info (host > part) in addition to the device id? That's a disadvantage. Possible advantage: implementation could be slightly easier than (1), because you don't have to find the host parts. >> 3. A new command "drive_del ID" similar to existing netdev_del. This is >> (2) fused with delete. Conceptual wart: you can't disconnect and >> keep the host part around. Moreover, delete is slightly dangerous, >> because it renders any guest device still using the host part >> useless. > > Hrm, I thought that's what (1) is. No. With (1), the argument is a *device* ID, and we disconnect *all* host parts connected to this device (typically just one). With (3), the argument is a netdev/drive ID, and disconnect *this* host part from the peer device. > Well, either (1) or (3); I'd like to > rename drive_unplug() to blockdev_del() since they're similar function > w.r.t removing access to the host resource. And we can invoke them in > the same way from libvirt (after doing guest notification, remove > access). I'd call it drive_del for now, to match drive_add. >> Do you need anything else from me to make progress? > > I think just an agreement on the approach; shouldn't take more than a > few hours to respin the qemu and libvirt side.