Re: [PATCH V9 05/17] block/export: track IOThread reference in BlockExport

[Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2038 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 07:06:26AM +0800, Zhang Chen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 2:33 AM Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 03:08:39PM +0800, Zhang Chen wrote:
> > > Users currently lack visibility into which block exports
> > > are utilizing specific IOThreads. This patch integrates IOThread
> > > referencing into the BlockExport lifecycle.
> > >
> > > - Add iothreads array and holder_name to BlockExport struct.
> > > - Use iothread_ref_and_get_aio_context during export creation.
> > > - Implement proper cleanup in blk_exp_add fail path and blk_exp_delete_bh.
> > > - Support both single and multi-iothread export configurations.
> > >
> > > This ensures IOThread 'holders' status correctly reflects active block
> > > exports for better debugging and resource tracking.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Zhang Chen <zhangckid@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  block/export/export.c  | 63 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > >  include/block/export.h |  6 ++++
> > >  2 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > If AI was used to generate this patch series, please see QEMU's AI
> > policy:
> > https://www.qemu.org/docs/master/devel/code-provenance.html#use-of-ai-generated-content
> >
> > This feels like AI generated code in that it is verbose and has lots of
> > structure (e.g. commit messages that look like an AI summary of the code
> > change), but the details are not correct (misleading comments, leaks,
> > etc).
> >
> > I will pause my review at this patch and wait for your response.
> 
> I used the AI for parts of commit messages.
> Please continue to review code parts and skip the commit message parts,
> I will remove all AI-generated commit messages in next version.
> 
> Sorry, I just noticed the discussion:
> [PATCH v2] docs/devel: relax policy on AI-generated contributions

By the way, the existing policy already allows using AI for code review.
I recommend doing this before sending patches.

Stefan

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