From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:36477) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QouLi-0002H7-Ou for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Aug 2011 05:36:19 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QouLh-0005nf-LI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Aug 2011 05:36:18 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:24237) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QouLh-0005nZ-Cz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Aug 2011 05:36:17 -0400 From: Markus Armbruster References: <1311179069-27882-1-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> <1311179069-27882-45-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 11:36:08 +0200 In-Reply-To: (andrzej zaborowski's message of "Wed, 3 Aug 2011 22:20:44 +0200") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 44/55] spitz tosa: Simplify "drive is suitable for microdrive" test List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: andrzej zaborowski Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, Peter Maydell , quintela@redhat.com, dbaryshkov@gmail.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, lcapitulino@redhat.com, amit.shah@redhat.com andrzej zaborowski writes: > On 3 August 2011 20:24, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> andrzej zaborowski writes: >>> On 3 August 2011 18:38, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>>> andrzej zaborowski writes: >>>>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A02. if the >>>>> underlaying storage can disappear for any other reason if that's >>>>> possible to check. >>>> >>>> bdrv_is_removable() *isn't* such a check. >>> >>> Obviously I wasn't claiming it is, just that it might be useful, but >>> not necessrily possible. =C2=A0After all pretty much any storage can be >>> "ejected" with enough force, depending on how far you want to go. >>> >>>>>> What's wrong with that again? =C2=A0All sounds sensible to me. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not claiming otherwise, just double-checking this is what you wan= t. >>> >>> So first you said you had a problem with _is_removable, and then you >>> said nothing was wrong with the implementation you outlined, plase >>> make up your mind. >> >> I don't appreciate you quoting me out of context like that. > > I got quite annoyed when you started putting words in my mouth by > saying I said anything about CD-ROM.. the code in spitz/tosa is not I didn't intend to annoy. It was an honest attempt to figure out what you want to accomplish there. Sorry it came out the wrong way. [...]