* Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2011-01-05 19:53:44]:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 10:57:08AM +0530, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote:
> > @@ -545,13 +555,19 @@ static void paio_cancel(BlockDriverAIOCB *blockacb)
> > }
> > mutex_unlock(&lock);
> >
> > - if (active) {
> > - /* fail safe: if the aio could not be canceled, we wait for
> > - it */
> > - while (qemu_paio_error(acb) == EINPROGRESS)
> > - ;
> > + qemu_mutex_lock(&aiocb_mutex);
> > + if (!active) {
> > + acb->ret = -ECANCELED;
> > + } else {
> > + while (acb->ret == -EINPROGRESS) {
> > + /*
> > + * fail safe: if the aio could not be canceled,
> > + * we wait for it
> > + */
> > + qemu_cond_wait(&aiocb_completion, &aiocb_mutex);
> > + }
> > }
> > -
> > + qemu_mutex_unlock(&aiocb_mutex);
> > paio_remove(acb);
> > }
>
> acb->ret and acb->active have been moved under aiocb_mutex. They are still
> accessed under lock here and this needs to be fixed:
>
> mutex_lock(&lock);
> if (!acb->active) {
> QTAILQ_REMOVE(&request_list, acb, node);
> acb->ret = -ECANCELED;
> } else if (acb->ret == -EINPROGRESS) {
> active = 1;
> }
> mutex_unlock(&lock);
>
You are right. This needs to go under aiocb_mutex too.
-arun
> Stefan
