From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] virtio: find_vqs/del_vqs virtio operations Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 10:25:38 +0300 Message-ID: <20090510072538.GA5335@redhat.com> References: <200905081637.09729.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <20090508124821.GA3073@redhat.com> <200905101337.06836.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christian Borntraeger , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Anthony Liguori , kvm@vger.kernel.org, avi@redhat.com To: Rusty Russell Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:48169 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752692AbZEJH2k (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 May 2009 03:28:40 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200905101337.06836.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 01:37:06PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > Yes, and in fact a rough look at your patch reveals that we don't actually > need del_vq: now we track them, we can just do that as part of vdev > destruction, right? Let's assume that a driver encounters an error in probe after it calls find_vq. It would need a way to revert find_vq, won't it? It seems to me that bus->remove does not get called on probe failure. Isn't that right? -- MST