[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v2 1/2] blockdev: release the AioContext at driv
Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v2 1/2] blockdev: release the AioContext at drive_backup_prepare
Mon, 16 Sep 2019 13:17:35 +0200
mu4e 1.2.0; emacs 26.2
Kevin Wolf <address@hidden> writes:
> Am 13.09.2019 um 21:54 hat John Snow geschrieben:
>> On 9/13/19 11:25 AM, Sergio Lopez wrote:
>> > do_drive_backup() already acquires the AioContext, so release it
>> > before the call.
>> > Signed-off-by: Sergio Lopez <address@hidden>
>> > ---
>> > blockdev.c | 6 +-----
>> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
>> > diff --git a/blockdev.c b/blockdev.c
>> > index fbef6845c8..3927fdab80 100644
>> > --- a/blockdev.c
>> > +++ b/blockdev.c
>> > @@ -1783,20 +1783,16 @@ static void drive_backup_prepare(BlkActionState
>> > *common, Error **errp)
>> > aio_context = bdrv_get_aio_context(bs);
>> > aio_context_acquire(aio_context);
>> > -
> Are you removing this unrelated empty line intentionally?
Yes. In the sense of that whole set of lines being a "open drained
>> > /* Paired with .clean() */
>> > bdrv_drained_begin(bs);
>> Do we need to make this change to blockdev_backup_prepare as well?
> Actually, the whole structure feels a bit wrong. We get the bs here and
> take its lock, then release the lock again and forget the reference,
> only to do both things again inside do_drive_backup().
> The way snapshots work is that the "normal" snapshot commands are
> wrappers that turn it into a single-entry transaction. Then you have
> only one code path where you can resolve the ID and take the lock just
> once. So maybe backup should work like this, too?
I'm neither opposed nor in favor, but I think this is outside the scope
of this patch series.
Description: PGP signature