Sergio Lopez <s...@redhat.com> writes: > Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> writes: > >> Am 13.09.2019 um 21:54 hat John Snow geschrieben: >>> >>> >>> On 9/13/19 11:25 AM, Sergio Lopez wrote: >>> > do_drive_backup() already acquires the AioContext, so release it >>> > before the call. >>> > >>> > Signed-off-by: Sergio Lopez <s...@redhat.com> >>> > --- >>> > blockdev.c | 6 +----- >>> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) >>> > >>> > diff --git a/blockdev.c b/blockdev.c >>> > index fbef6845c8..3927fdab80 100644 >>> > --- a/blockdev.c >>> > +++ b/blockdev.c >>> > @@ -1783,20 +1783,16 @@ static void drive_backup_prepare(BlkActionState >>> > *common, Error **errp) >>> > >>> > aio_context = bdrv_get_aio_context(bs); >>> > aio_context_acquire(aio_context); >>> > - >> >> Are you removing this unrelated empty line intentionally? > > Yes. In the sense of that whole set of lines being a "open drained > section" block. > >>> > /* Paired with .clean() */ >>> > bdrv_drained_begin(bs); >>> >>> Do we need to make this change to blockdev_backup_prepare as well? >> >> Actually, the whole structure feels a bit wrong. We get the bs here and >> take its lock, then release the lock again and forget the reference, >> only to do both things again inside do_drive_backup(). >> >> The way snapshots work is that the "normal" snapshot commands are >> wrappers that turn it into a single-entry transaction. Then you have >> only one code path where you can resolve the ID and take the lock just >> once. So maybe backup should work like this, too? > > I'm neither opposed nor in favor, but I think this is outside the scope > of this patch series.
Kevin, do you think we should attempt to just fix this issue (which would make a possible backport easier) or try to move all blockdev actions to be transaction-based? Cheers, Sergio.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
