Am 21.10.2015 um 15:47 hat Max Reitz geschrieben: > On 21.10.2015 13:49, Alberto Garcia wrote: > > On Mon 19 Oct 2015 05:53:37 PM CEST, Max Reitz wrote: > >> And a helper function for that, which directly takes a pointer to the > >> BDS to be inserted instead of its node-name (which will be used for > >> implementing 'change' using blockdev-insert-medium). > > > > Shouldn't this update bdrv_states? > > I hate bdrv_states. > > Yes, it should. Thanks!
Once your reimplement blk_set_bs() on top of blk_insert/remove_bs(), this logic would replace the code in change_parent_backing_link(). Of course, I left the list update in block.c for a reason, it's meant to be an internal data structure, so your code accessing it from outside won't be much nicer. Do we actually still need bdrv_states or can we get rid of it in a follow-up series? If so, I wouldn't mind an ugly intermediate state. Kevin
pgpm3uqdoBBPE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
