[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v11 21/21] job: remove unused functions
From: |
Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v11 21/21] job: remove unused functions |
Date: |
Sun, 18 Sep 2022 19:22:42 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.0 |
Am 14/09/2022 um 16:28 schrieb Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy:
> On 8/26/22 16:21, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
>> These public functions are not used anywhere, thus can be dropped.
>> Also, since this is the final job API that doesn't use AioContext
>> lock and replaces it with job_lock, adjust all remaining function
>> documentation to clearly specify if the job lock is taken or not.
>>
>> Also document the locking requirements for a few functions
>> where the second version is not removed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> include/qemu/job.h | 96 ++++++++++++++----------------------------
>> job.c | 101 ++-------------------------------------------
>> 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 163 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/qemu/job.h b/include/qemu/job.h
>> index ad8b32b4ba..762d6a98a7 100644
>> --- a/include/qemu/job.h
>> +++ b/include/qemu/job.h
>> @@ -384,6 +384,8 @@ JobTxn *job_txn_new(void);
>> /**
>> * Release a reference that was previously acquired with
>> job_txn_add_job or
>
> [..]
>
>> +/**
>> + * Returns true if the job is user-paused.
>> + * Called with job lock held.
>> + */
>> bool job_user_paused_locked(Job *job);
>> /**
>> * Resume the specified @job.
>> * Must be paired with a preceding job_user_pause.
>
> in comment: job_user_puase_locked
>
>
> Please also fix other removed function mentioning in comments, for
> example I see in comments mentioning of removed job_ref, job_unref,
> job_user_pause...
Ok
>> @@ -725,9 +703,6 @@ void job_cancel_sync_all(void);
>> * Returns the return value from the job.
>> * Called with job_lock *not* held.
>
> in comment: with lock held.
>
No idea what you mean here.
Thank you,
Emanuele