From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44793) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b0TMO-0006uv-Om for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 11 May 2016 08:35:35 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b0TMN-0004lb-O8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 11 May 2016 08:35:28 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 14:35:10 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20160511123510.GF4524@noname.str.redhat.com> References: <1461346962-4676-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> <1461346962-4676-14-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 13/13] block: Don't check throttled reqs in bdrv_requests_pending() List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alberto Garcia Cc: qemu-block@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, mreitz@redhat.com, eblake@redhat.com, stefanha@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Am 10.05.2016 um 14:20 hat Alberto Garcia geschrieben: > On Fri 22 Apr 2016 07:42:42 PM CEST, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > Checking whether there are throttled requests requires going to the > > associated BlockBackend, which we want to avoid. All users of > > bdrv_requests_pending() already call bdrv_parent_drained_begin() > > first, > > There's a couple of assert(!bdrv_requests_pending()), is it also the > case with them? I'm changing it into "all users in block/io.c" and adding this paragraph to the commit message: The remaining users (assertions during graph manipulation in block.c) don't care about requests that are still queued in the BlockBackend and haven't been issued for a BlockDriverState yet. Makes sense? Kevin