From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58519)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <famz@redhat.com>) id 1adZF5-0008QJ-FY
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 03:13:16 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <famz@redhat.com>) id 1adZF4-00020S-NW
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 03:13:15 -0500
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 16:13:05 +0800
From: Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20160309081305.GH17947@ad.usersys.redhat.com>
References: <1455645388-32401-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<1455645388-32401-10-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1455645388-32401-10-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 09/16] block: wait for all pending I/O when
 doing synchronous requests
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: stefanha@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org

On Tue, 02/16 18:56, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> diff --git a/block/qed.c b/block/qed.c
> index ebba220..e90792f 100644
> --- a/block/qed.c
> +++ b/block/qed.c
> @@ -352,7 +352,9 @@ static void qed_start_need_check_timer(BDRVQEDState *s)
>  static void qed_cancel_need_check_timer(BDRVQEDState *s)
>  {
>      trace_qed_cancel_need_check_timer(s);
> -    timer_del(s->need_check_timer);
> +    if (s->need_check_timer) {
> +        timer_del(s->need_check_timer);
> +    }
>  }

Not clear why this change is needed in this patch, but it is obviously not
wrong.  If this is to mask a bug, it at least deserves a comment.

The other parts of the patch looks good to me.

Fam