Re: [PATCH v5 28/31] block.c: assert BQL lock held in bdrv_co_invalidate_cache

[Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito]

On 20/01/2022 14:48, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 20.01.2022 um 14:22 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
> > On 1/19/22 19:34, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > > So if we go back to a bdrv_invalidate_cache() that does all the graph
> > > manipulations (and asserts that we're in the main loop) and then have a
> > > much smaller bdrv_co_invalidate_cache() that basically just calls into
> > > the driver, would that solve the problem?
> >
> > I was going to suggest something similar, and even name the former
> > bdrv_activate().  Then bdrv_activate() is a graph manipulation function,
> > while bdrv_co_invalidate_cache() is an I/O function.
>
> I like this. The naming inconsistency between inactivate and
> invalidate_cache has always bothered me.

Ok, I am going to apply this. Thank you for the suggestion!

> Did look further, couldn’t find anything else interesting.
> So I think(TM) that this blk_exp_add() is the only thing that needs fixing.

When splitting the logic between bdrv_activate and 
bdrv_co_invalidate_cache, there is no need anymore to fix blk_exp_add :)

I am going to send v6 by the end of today.

Thank you,
Emanuele