22.01.2021 14:18, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 22.01.2021 um 12:04 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben:
19.01.2021 19:38, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 18.01.2021 um 18:36 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben:
18.01.2021 18:13, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 27.11.2020 um 15:44 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben:
Add new handler to get aio context and implement it in all child
classes. Add corresponding public interface to be used soon.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsement...@virtuozzo.com>
Hm, are you going to introduce cases where parent and child context
don't match, or why is this a useful function?
Even if so, I feel it shouldn't be any of the child's business what
AioContext the parent uses.
Well, maybe the rest of the series will answer this.
It's for the following patch, to not pass parent (as opaque) with it's
class, and with its ctx in separate. Just to simplify the interface of
the function, we are going to work with a lot.
In a way, the result is nicer because we already assume that ctx is the
parent context when we move things to different AioContexts. So it's
more consistent to just directly take it from the parent.
At the same time, it also complicates things a bit because now we need a
defined state in the middle of an operation that adds, removes or
replaces a child.
I guess I still to make more progress in the review of this series until
I see how you're using the interface.
Hm. I'll take this opportunity to say, that the terminology that calls
graph edge "BdrvChild" always leads to the mess between parents and
children.. "child_class" is a class of parent.. list of parents is
list of children... It all would be a lot simpler to understand if
BdrvChild was BdrvEdge or something like this.
Yeah, that would probably be clearer now that we actually use it to
work with both ends of the edge. And BdrvNode instead of
BlockDriverState, I guess.
Do you think, we can just rename them? Or it would be too painful for
developers,
who get used to current names? I can make patches
I think getting used to new names wouldn't be too bad. I would be more
afraid of the merge conflicts.
Not sure, but it might in the category that we would do it differently
if we were starting over, but maybe not worth changing now.
Hmm yes, such rename will add a year of uncomfortable patch backporting..
--
Best regards,
Vladimir
