Re: [PATCH 2/9] block-copy: add missing coroutine_fn annotations

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 11/4/22 10:20, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
> At this point I just want to make sure that we agree that it's correct
> to add coroutine_fn because of "the function calls a g_c_w that
> suspends" *&&* "all the callers are coroutine_fn". If the callers
> weren't coroutine_fn then g_c_w would just create a new coroutine and
> poll, and I don't think that would be part of your definition of "can
> suspend".

Yes, we agree on that.  The confusion was just on the commit message.

The even-better fix would be to also call coroutine_fn from 
coroutine_fn, instead of calling mixed coroutine/non-coroutine functions 
such as g_c_w functions.  However, adding coroutine_fn *is* correct.

Paolo