On 19/02/19 12:11, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> 2) maybe instead of aio_co_schedul-ing client->connection_co and having >> the s->aio_ctx_switch flag, you could go through a bottom half that does >> the bdrv_inc_in_flight and then enters client->connection_co? > That would be too easy. :-) > > But I agree, that might indeed be the better solution. > > I think I'd keep patch 6 anyway so that we know the exact yield that > we'll interrupt, even if it's not strictly necessary as long as we know > that nbd_receive_reply() can only yield in places that are safe to be > interrupted. While intuitively I think it's true, I don't feel like > actually auditing the code, and at some point we'd probably fail to > check that new code won't violate this invariant.
Yes, I agree with keeping patch 6. Paolo
