From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41054)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <famz@redhat.com>) id 1a9Xa1-0007e4-2g
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 07:22:45 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <famz@redhat.com>) id 1a9XZv-000426-Og
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 07:22:44 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:48074)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <famz@redhat.com>) id 1a9XZv-00041w-Jm
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 07:22:39 -0500
Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22])
	by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 721E849DD4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 12:22:38 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:22:33 +0800
From: Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20151217122233.GA26335@ad.usersys.redhat.com>
References: <1450290827-30508-2-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<20151217011527.GB20007@ad.usersys.redhat.com>
	<56727545.60203@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <56727545.60203@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] scsi: always call notifier on async
	cancellation
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Thu, 12/17 09:41, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
> 
> On 17/12/2015 02:15, Fam Zheng wrote:
> >> >      if (notifier) {
> >> >          notifier_list_add(&req->cancel_notifiers, notifier);
> >> >      }
> >> > -    if (req->io_canceled) {
> >> > -        return;
> >> > -    }
> >> >      scsi_req_ref(req);
> >> >      scsi_req_dequeue(req);
> >> >      req->io_canceled = true;
> >        if (req->aiocb) {
> >            blk_aio_cancel_async(req->aiocb);
> >        } else {
> >            scsi_req_cancel_complete(req);
> >        }
> > 
> > A second TMF must be blk_aio_cancel_async case, otherwise the first one would
> > have already completed the request synchronously in scsi_req_cancel_complete.
> 
> Good point.
> 
> > With that in mind, I think returning early is not a problem. But I suppose
> > these are also idempotent so this change is not breaking anything, either.
> 
> Right, the issue is that all these calls are idempotent, but the
> notifier may not; that is why I prefer to be safe and ensure that all
> notifier additions are matched by a notify.  But you explained well why
> this should be safe, I'll add a note to the commit message.
> 

Thanks, please add my

Reviewed-by: Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com>