On 14/04/20 10:03, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>
>> On 11/04/20 13:19, Daniel Brodsky wrote:
>>> Just making sure this patch didn't get lost.
>>> ping http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1266336/
>>
>> The patch looks good, but it will be included in QEMU only after 5.0 is
>>
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 11/04/20 13:19, Daniel Brodsky wrote:
>> Just making sure this patch didn't get lost.
>> ping http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1266336/
>
> The patch looks good, but it will be included in QEMU only after 5.0 is
> released.
Can we queue it for 5.1 right away?
On 11/04/20 13:19, Daniel Brodsky wrote:
> Just making sure this patch didn't get lost.
> ping http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1266336/
The patch looks good, but it will be included in QEMU only after 5.0 is
released.
Thanks,
Paolo
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 9:21 PM wrote:
>
> From: Daniel Brodsky
>
> - ran regexp "qemu_mutex_lock\(.*\).*\n.*if" to find targets
> - replaced result with QEMU_LOCK_GUARD if all unlocks at function end
> - replaced result with WITH_QEMU_LOCK_GUARD if unlock not at end
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel
dnbrd...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Daniel Brodsky
>
> - ran regexp "qemu_mutex_lock\(.*\).*\n.*if" to find targets
> - replaced result with QEMU_LOCK_GUARD if all unlocks at function end
> - replaced result with WITH_QEMU_LOCK_GUARD if unlock not at end
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Brodsky
From: Daniel Brodsky
- ran regexp "qemu_mutex_lock\(.*\).*\n.*if" to find targets
- replaced result with QEMU_LOCK_GUARD if all unlocks at function end
- replaced result with WITH_QEMU_LOCK_GUARD if unlock not at end
Signed-off-by: Daniel Brodsky
---
block/iscsi.c | 7 ++
