On 12/12/22 16:57, Kevin Wolf wrote:
I looks to me like this is a problem with the test case rather than the
change per se. It seems to be fixed with this patch that is already
posted as part of the next series:
[PATCH 09/18] test-bdrv-drain: Fix incorrrect drain assumptions
Am 09.12.2022 um 17:53 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
> On 11/18/22 18:41, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > In order to make sure that bdrv_replace_child_noperm() doesn't have to
> > poll any more, get rid of the bdrv_parent_drained_begin_single() call.
> >
> > This is possible now because we can require
On 12/9/22 17:53, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 11/18/22 18:41, Kevin Wolf wrote:
In order to make sure that bdrv_replace_child_noperm() doesn't have to
poll any more, get rid of the bdrv_parent_drained_begin_single() call.
This is possible now because we can require that the parent is already
On 11/18/22 18:41, Kevin Wolf wrote:
In order to make sure that bdrv_replace_child_noperm() doesn't have to
poll any more, get rid of the bdrv_parent_drained_begin_single() call.
This is possible now because we can require that the parent is already
drained through the child in question when
Am 25.11.2022 um 17:07 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben:
> On 11/18/22 20:41, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > In order to make sure that bdrv_replace_child_noperm() doesn't have to
> > poll any more, get rid of the bdrv_parent_drained_begin_single() call.
> >
> > This is possible now because we
On 11/18/22 20:41, Kevin Wolf wrote:
In order to make sure that bdrv_replace_child_noperm() doesn't have to
poll any more, get rid of the bdrv_parent_drained_begin_single() call.
This is possible now because we can require that the parent is already
drained through the child in question when
In order to make sure that bdrv_replace_child_noperm() doesn't have to
poll any more, get rid of the bdrv_parent_drained_begin_single() call.
This is possible now because we can require that the parent is already
drained through the child in question when the function is called and we
don't call
