Re: [PATCH 5/9] block/accounting: Add BB field to latency checker

[Hanna Czenczek <hreitz@redhat.com>]

On 22.09.26 14:14, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 31.08.2026 um 15:52 hat Hanna Czenczek geschrieben:
>> The BlockBackend reference is required to be able to generate the QOM
>> path as part of emitted events.
>>
>> A weak reference is enough because BlockAcctStats is tied directly to
>> one BlockBackend, and will be deleted via block_acct_cleanup() before
>> the BlockBackend is truly deleted.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hanna Czenczek <hreitz@redhat.com>
> The subject line is a bit confusing as there is no latency checker yet.
> Should it say "to BlockAcctStats"?

Oops. I fixed the body, but not the subject. Yes, it absolutely should, 
thanks!

>>   include/block/accounting.h | 3 ++-
>>   block/accounting.c         | 7 ++++++-
>>   block/block-backend.c      | 2 +-
>>   3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> diff --git a/block/block-backend.c b/block/block-backend.c
>> index 164bda846f4..ca091a8bf5d 100644
>> --- a/block/block-backend.c
>> +++ b/block/block-backend.c
>> @@ -369,7 +369,7 @@ BlockBackend *blk_new(AioContext *ctx, uint64_t perm, uint64_t shared_perm)
>>       blk->on_read_error = BLOCKDEV_ON_ERROR_REPORT;
>>       blk->on_write_error = BLOCKDEV_ON_ERROR_ENOSPC;
>>   
>> -    block_acct_init(&blk->stats);
>> +    block_acct_init(blk, &blk->stats);
> This is the only caller. I'm not sure what other callers could look
> like, but now that a BlockBackend is required for it, could the second
> parameter ever give any useful additional information (as opposed to
> block_acct_init() just accessing blk->stats internally now that it has
> blk)?

I mean, to me personally it looks a bit nicer this way, because it makes 
it a bit clearer *what* is initialized.

But you’re right. Functionally, there’s absolutely no point in passing 
both, so I’ll cut it down (depending on what the next version of this 
series is going to look like…).

Hanna