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 :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list