Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 19/42] job: Add job_sleep_ns()

[John Snow]

On 05/09/2018 12:26 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> There is nothing block layer specific about block_job_sleep_ns(), so
> move the function to Job.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <address@hidden>
> ---
>  include/block/blockjob_int.h | 11 -----------
>  include/qemu/job.h           | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>  block/backup.c               |  2 +-
>  block/commit.c               |  2 +-
>  block/mirror.c               |  4 ++--
>  block/stream.c               |  2 +-
>  blockjob.c                   | 27 ---------------------------
>  job.c                        | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  tests/test-bdrv-drain.c      |  8 ++++----
>  tests/test-blockjob-txn.c    |  2 +-
>  tests/test-blockjob.c        |  2 +-
>  11 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/block/blockjob_int.h b/include/block/blockjob_int.h
> index 0a614a89b8..8937f5b163 100644
> --- a/include/block/blockjob_int.h
> +++ b/include/block/blockjob_int.h
> @@ -134,17 +134,6 @@ void *block_job_create(const char *job_id, const 
> BlockJobDriver *driver,
>  void block_job_free(Job *job);
>  
>  /**
> - * block_job_sleep_ns:
> - * @job: The job that calls the function.
> - * @ns: How many nanoseconds to stop for.
> - *
> - * Put the job to sleep (assuming that it wasn't canceled) for @ns
> - * %QEMU_CLOCK_REALTIME nanoseconds.  Canceling the job will immediately
> - * interrupt the wait.
> - */
> -void block_job_sleep_ns(BlockJob *job, int64_t ns);
> -
> -/**
>   * block_job_yield:
>   * @job: The job that calls the function.
>   *
> diff --git a/include/qemu/job.h b/include/qemu/job.h
> index 00c7cda9a3..ddfa824315 100644
> --- a/include/qemu/job.h
> +++ b/include/qemu/job.h
> @@ -168,6 +168,13 @@ void job_enter_cond(Job *job, bool(*fn)(Job *job));
>  void job_start(Job *job);
>  
>  /**
> + * @job: The job to enter.
> + *
> + * Continue the specified job by entering the coroutine.
> + */
> +void job_enter(Job *job);
> +

Is this a holdout from #18?

Eh, either way.

Reviewed-by: John Snow <address@hidden>