From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37072) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1df9YM-0008DB-OE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Aug 2017 14:48:31 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1df9YL-0001q5-Ns for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Aug 2017 14:48:30 -0400 References: <20170808175711.12203-1-jsnow@redhat.com> <20170808175711.12203-4-jsnow@redhat.com> <1429674390.2509647.1502217270165.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> From: John Snow Message-ID: <1a1779b9-2624-9808-288c-7288b269bc7f@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 14:48:14 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1429674390.2509647.1502217270165.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/4] block-backend: shift in-flight counter to BB from BDS List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, qemu-block@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, dgilbert@redhat.com, stefanha@redhat.com, pjp@redhat.com On 08/08/2017 02:34 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "John Snow" >> To: qemu-block@nongnu.org >> Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, dgilbert@redhat.com, stefanha@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, >> pjp@redhat.com, "John Snow" >> Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 7:57:10 PM >> Subject: [PATCH 3/4] block-backend: shift in-flight counter to BB from BDS >> >> From: Kevin Wolf >> >> This allows us to detect errors in cache flushing (ENOMEDIUM) >> without choking on a null dereference because we assume that >> blk_bs(bb) is always defined. >> >> Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf >> Signed-off-by: John Snow > > This is not enough, as discussed in the thread. > > Paolo > Sure, I amended Kevin's later fix and rolled it into one patch and split the tests out. The cover letter states that this is busted, but I wanted it on the list instead of buried in a now-unrelated thread. So now it's here as a patch, can we keep discussion here instead of on the other thread? --John