From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44936) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SteeG-0005vA-81 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 08:55:43 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Stee7-0004PU-Sn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 08:55:35 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:55249) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Stee7-0004PP-KW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 08:55:27 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 09:55:48 -0300 From: Luiz Capitulino Message-ID: <20120724095548.2bf348d8@doriath.home> In-Reply-To: <20120724101039.GA2118@irqsave.net> References: <1343053380-12133-1-git-send-email-benoit@irqsave.net> <1343053380-12133-2-git-send-email-benoit@irqsave.net> <20120723141501.735465ca@doriath.home> <20120724101039.GA2118@irqsave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V4 1/3] block: Add bdrv_are_busy() List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?ISO-8859-1?B?QmVub+50?= Canet Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, Anthony Liguori , benoit.canet@gmail.com, stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com, stefanha@gmail.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 12:10:39 +0200 Beno=EEt Canet wrote: > Le Monday 23 Jul 2012 =E0 14:15:01 (-0300), Luiz Capitulino a =E9crit : > > On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 16:22:58 +0200 > > benoit.canet@gmail.com wrote: > >=20 > > > From: Beno=EEt Canet > > >=20 > > > bdrv_are_busy will be used to check if any of the bs are in use > > > or if one of them have a running block job. > > >=20 > > > The first user will be qmp_migrate(). > > >=20 > > > Signed-off-by: Benoit Canet > > > --- > > > block.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > > > block.h | 2 ++ > > > 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+) > > >=20 > > > diff --git a/block.c b/block.c > > > index ce7eb8f..bc8f160 100644 > > > --- a/block.c > > > +++ b/block.c > > > @@ -4027,6 +4027,19 @@ out: > > > return ret; > > > } > > > =20 > > > +int bdrv_are_busy(void) > > > +{ > > > + BlockDriverState *bs; > > > + > > > + QTAILQ_FOREACH(bs, &bdrv_states, list) { > > > + if (bs->job || bdrv_in_use(bs)) { > > > + return -EBUSY; > > > + } > > > + } > >=20 > > IMO, this should return true/false. The name is a bit misleading too, a= s it > > gives the impression that are existing bdrvs are busy. I'd call it > > bdrv_any_busy() or bdrv_any_in_use(). >=20 > Hello Anthony, >=20 > Stefanha is in favor of returning -EBUSY and Luiz Capitulino would prefer > the function to return a boolean. > Could you decide which option is the best ? Stefan's opnion certainly has precedence over mine on block layer stuff, this was just an IMO. Stefan, did you consider returning a boolean? >=20 > Regards >=20 > Beno=EEt >=20 > >=20 > > > + > > > + return 0; > > > +} > > > + > > > void *block_job_create(const BlockJobType *job_type, BlockDriverStat= e *bs, > > > int64_t speed, BlockDriverCompletionFunc *cb, > > > void *opaque, Error **errp) > > > diff --git a/block.h b/block.h > > > index c89590d..0a3de2f 100644 > > > --- a/block.h > > > +++ b/block.h > > > @@ -337,6 +337,8 @@ void bdrv_disable_copy_on_read(BlockDriverState *= bs); > > > void bdrv_set_in_use(BlockDriverState *bs, int in_use); > > > int bdrv_in_use(BlockDriverState *bs); > > > =20 > > > +int bdrv_are_busy(void); > > > + > > > enum BlockAcctType { > > > BDRV_ACCT_READ, > > > BDRV_ACCT_WRITE, > >=20 >=20