13.11.2017 20:50, Eric Blake wrote:
On 11/13/2017 10:20 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Like other setters here these functions should take a lock.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsement...@virtuozzo.com>
---
block/dirty-bitmap.c | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
Should this patch be in 2.11?
these functions are unused now, so, no, it's not necessary
diff --git a/block/dirty-bitmap.c b/block/dirty-bitmap.c
index bd04e991b1..2a0bcd9e51 100644
--- a/block/dirty-bitmap.c
+++ b/block/dirty-bitmap.c
@@ -397,15 +397,19 @@ void bdrv_remove_persistent_dirty_bitmap(BlockDriverState
*bs,
/* Called with BQL taken. */
void bdrv_disable_dirty_bitmap(BdrvDirtyBitmap *bitmap)
{
+ bdrv_dirty_bitmap_lock(bitmap);
assert(!bdrv_dirty_bitmap_frozen(bitmap));
bitmap->disabled = true;
+ bdrv_dirty_bitmap_unlock(bitmap);
Why do we need this lock in addition to BQL?
}
/* Called with BQL taken. */
void bdrv_enable_dirty_bitmap(BdrvDirtyBitmap *bitmap)
{
+ bdrv_dirty_bitmap_lock(bitmap);
assert(!bdrv_dirty_bitmap_frozen(bitmap));
bitmap->disabled = false;
+ bdrv_dirty_bitmap_unlock(bitmap);
Again, why do we need this in addition to BQL?
The commit message needs more details about a scenario where our
existing BQL lock is insufficient to prevent misuse of bitmap->disabled.
--
Best regards,
Vladimir
