On 14.12.21 20:48, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
On 10/12/2021 18:43, Hanna Reitz wrote:
On 24.11.21 07:43, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
We want to be sure that the functions that write the child and
parent list of a bs are under BQL and drain.
BQL prevents from concurrent writings from the GS API, while
drains protect from I/O.
TODO: drains are missing in some functions using this assert.
Therefore a proper assertion will fail. Because adding drains
requires additional discussions, they will be added in future
series.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eespo...@redhat.com>
---
include/block/block_int-global-state.h | 10 +++++++++-
block.c | 4 ++++
block/io.c | 11 +++++++++++
3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/block/block_int-global-state.h
b/include/block/block_int-global-state.h
index a1b7d0579d..fa96e8b449 100644
--- a/include/block/block_int-global-state.h
+++ b/include/block/block_int-global-state.h
@@ -312,4 +312,12 @@ void
bdrv_remove_aio_context_notifier(BlockDriverState *bs,
*/
void bdrv_drain_all_end_quiesce(BlockDriverState *bs);
-#endif /* BLOCK_INT_GLOBAL_STATE*/
This looks like it should be squashed into patch 7, sorry I missed
this in v4...
(Rest of this patch looks good to me, for the record – and while I’m
at it, for patches I didn’t reply to so far, I planned to send an R-b
later. But then there’s things like patches 2/3 looking good to me,
but it turned out in my review for patch 4 that bdrv_lock_medium() is
used in an I/O path, so I can’t really send an R-b now anymore...)
Sorry I don't understand this, what should be squashed into patch 7?
The assertion? If so, why?
No, the
-#endif /* BLOCK_INT_GLOBAL_STATE*/
+#endif /* BLOCK_INT_GLOBAL_STATE */
part of the hunk.
Hanna
