Am 28.01.2013 18:07, schrieb Benoît Canet:
> Signed-off-by: Benoit Canet <ben...@irqsave.net>
> ---
> block/quorum.c | 111
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 111 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/block/quorum.c b/block/quorum.c
> index d8fffbe..5d8470b 100644
> --- a/block/quorum.c
> +++ b/block/quorum.c
> @@ -52,11 +52,122 @@ struct QuorumAIOCB {
> int vote_ret;
> };
>
> +static void quorum_aio_cancel(BlockDriverAIOCB *blockacb)
> +{
> + QuorumAIOCB *acb = container_of(blockacb, QuorumAIOCB, common);
> + bool finished = false;
> +
> + /* Wait for the request to finish */
> + acb->finished = &finished;
> + while (!finished) {
> + qemu_aio_wait();
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static AIOCBInfo quorum_aiocb_info = {
> + .aiocb_size = sizeof(QuorumAIOCB),
> + .cancel = quorum_aio_cancel,
> +};
> +
> +static void quorum_aio_bh(void *opaque)
> +{
> + QuorumAIOCB *acb = opaque;
> + BDRVQuorumState *s = acb->bqs;
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = s->threshold <= acb->success_count ? 0 : -EIO;
It would be very much preferable if you stored the actual error code
instead of turning everything into -EIO.
> +
> + qemu_bh_delete(acb->bh);
> + acb->common.cb(acb->common.opaque, ret);
> + if (acb->finished) {
> + *acb->finished = true;
> + }
> + g_free(acb->aios);
> + qemu_aio_release(acb);
> +}
Move this down so that it's next to the function using the bottom half.
> +
> +static QuorumAIOCB *quorum_aio_get(BDRVQuorumState *s,
> + BlockDriverState *bs,
> + QEMUIOVector *qiov,
> + uint64_t sector_num,
> + int nb_sectors,
> + BlockDriverCompletionFunc *cb,
> + void *opaque)
> +{
> + QuorumAIOCB *acb = qemu_aio_get(&quorum_aiocb_info, bs, cb, opaque);
> + int i;
> +
> + acb->aios = g_new0(QuorumSingleAIOCB, s->total);
> +
> + acb->bqs = s;
> + acb->qiov = qiov;
> + acb->bh = NULL;
> + acb->count = 0;
> + acb->success_count = 0;
> + acb->sector_num = sector_num;
> + acb->nb_sectors = nb_sectors;
> + acb->vote = NULL;
> + acb->vote_ret = 0;
> + acb->finished = NULL;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < s->total; i++) {
> + acb->aios[i].buf = NULL;
> + acb->aios[i].ret = 0;
> + acb->aios[i].parent = acb;
> + }
Would you mind to reorder the initialisation of the fields according to
the order that is used in the struct definition?
> +
> + return acb;
> +}
> +
> +static void quorum_aio_cb(void *opaque, int ret)
> +{
> + QuorumSingleAIOCB *sacb = opaque;
> + QuorumAIOCB *acb = sacb->parent;
> + BDRVQuorumState *s = acb->bqs;
> +
> + sacb->ret = ret;
> + acb->count++;
> + if (ret == 0) {
> + acb->success_count++;
> + }
> + assert(acb->count <= s->total);
> + assert(acb->success_count <= s->total);
> + if (acb->count < s->total) {
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + acb->bh = qemu_bh_new(quorum_aio_bh, acb);
> + qemu_bh_schedule(acb->bh);
What's the reason for using a bottom half here? Worth a comment?
multiwrite_cb() in block.c doesn't use one to achieve something similar.
Is it buggy when you need one here?
Kevin
