On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 03:40:14PM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
On 03/01/10 15:29, Wolfgang Mauerer wrote:
>Gerd: Are you intending to add the drive_del feature, or is
>the approach outlined above sufficient for drive hotplug/remove?
I'm busy with other tasks right now.
>Respectively can there be any problems if we remove a device
>associated with a disk and then re-create a drive/device pair
>with the same IDs as before, but with a different configuration?
There are no problems with that, when it is gone from 'info block' all
traces of the drive are gone and creating another one with the same name
is not a problem.
Great, this is sufficient for the hot-unplug code to work.
For symmetry reasons it would be nice to have a drive_del command
though
and have device_del not implicitly zap the drive. The current scheme
also fails to handle some corner cases like device_add failing (you are
left with a drive you can't remove easily).
Yep, that's a minor edge case we can worry about later
Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o-
http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org -o-
http://deltacloud.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|