From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44752)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <armbru@redhat.com>) id 1XTtAl-0000ab-Qf
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 09:52:05 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <armbru@redhat.com>) id 1XTtAe-0005Ys-7q
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 09:51:59 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58804)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <armbru@redhat.com>) id 1XTtAe-0005YD-11
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 09:51:52 -0400
From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
References: <1410620427-20089-1-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com>
	<1410620427-20089-5-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com>
	<20140916123848.GA27495@nodalink.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 15:51:42 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20140916123848.GA27495@nodalink.com> (=?utf-8?Q?=22Beno?=
	=?utf-8?Q?=C3=AEt?= Canet"'s message
	of "Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:38:48 +0000")
Message-ID: <87oaufk70x.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 04/23] block: Connect BlockBackend and
	DriveInfo
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: =?utf-8?Q?Beno=C3=AEt?= Canet <benoit.canet@nodalink.com>
Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com

Beno=C3=AEt Canet <benoit.canet@nodalink.com> writes:

>> +DriveInfo *blk_legacy_dinfo(BlockBackend *blk)
>> +{
>> +    return blk->legacy_dinfo;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Set @blk's DriveInfo to @dinfo, and return it.
>> + * @blk must not have a DriveInfo set already.
>
>> + * No other BlockBackend may have the same DriveInfo set.
> Must we try to assert this ?
> This would require an extra linked list traversal but I don't think it's a
> performance path anyway.

Must, no.  We could.

However, the obvious

    assert(!blk_by_legacy_dinfo(dinfo);

doesn't work, because blk_by_legacy_dinfo() asserts it returns a
non-null value.  Either we sacrifice that assertion, or we duplicate the
search loop here (yuck), or we factor it out into a helper function.  I
don't particularly like either of the three.  But if you guys really
want the precondition checked, I'll check it.

> Reviewed-by: Beno=C3=AEt Canet <benoit.canet@nodalink.com>

Thanks!