Re: [PATCH 1/2] io/block: Refactoring the bdrv_drained_begin() function and implement a timeout mechanism.

[Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1285 bytes --]

On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 08:18:28PM +0800, zoudongjie wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar, 2025 at 12:09:45 +0800, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 08, 2025 at 06:16:17PM +0800, zoudongjie wrote:
> > > @@ -342,16 +350,25 @@ static void coroutine_fn bdrv_co_yield_to_drain(BlockDriverState *bs,
> > >      /* If we are resumed from some other event (such as an aio completion or a
> > >       * timer callback), it is a bug in the caller that should be fixed. */
> > >      assert(data.done);
> > > +    return data.ret;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > -static void bdrv_do_drained_begin(BlockDriverState *bs, BdrvChild *parent,
> > > -                                  bool poll)
> > > +static void coroutine_fn bdrv_co_yield_to_drain(BlockDriverState *bs,
> > > +                                                bool begin,
> > > +                                                BdrvChild *parent,
> > > +                                                bool poll)
> > > +{
> > > +    bdrv_co_yield_to_drain_timeout(bs, begin, parent, poll, -1);
> > 
> > Is this safe on 32-bit platforms?
> 
> I'm sorry, can it be more specific here, I didn't get it.

I was thinking about -1 vs -1ull integer literals, but it's not a
problem for int64_t so everything is fine here.

Stefan

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]