From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Lieven <pl@kamp.de>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] block: eliminate BDRV_REQ_NO_SERIALISING
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 17:37:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191218163636.GC4632@linux.fritz.box> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1576675026-25046-2-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
[ Fixing the qemu-block address ]
Am 18.12.2019 um 14:17 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
> It is unused since commit 00e30f0 ("block/backup: use backup-top instead
> of write notifiers", 2019-10-01), drop it to simplify the code.
>
> While at it, drop redundant assertions on flags.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> ---
> block/io.c | 18 ++++--------------
> include/block/block.h | 12 ------------
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/io.c b/block/io.c
> index f75777f..b3a67fe 100644
> --- a/block/io.c
> +++ b/block/io.c
> @@ -1445,8 +1445,7 @@ static int coroutine_fn bdrv_aligned_preadv(BdrvChild *child,
> * potential fallback support, if we ever implement any read flags
> * to pass through to drivers. For now, there aren't any
> * passthrough flags. */
> - assert(!(flags & ~(BDRV_REQ_NO_SERIALISING | BDRV_REQ_COPY_ON_READ |
> - BDRV_REQ_PREFETCH)));
> + assert(!(flags & ~(BDRV_REQ_COPY_ON_READ | BDRV_REQ_PREFETCH)));
>
> /* Handle Copy on Read and associated serialisation */
> if (flags & BDRV_REQ_COPY_ON_READ) {
> @@ -1458,12 +1457,7 @@ static int coroutine_fn bdrv_aligned_preadv(BdrvChild *child,
> bdrv_mark_request_serialising(req, bdrv_get_cluster_size(bs));
> }
>
> - /* BDRV_REQ_SERIALISING is only for write operation */
> - assert(!(flags & BDRV_REQ_SERIALISING));
I think we shoud still keep this assertion as long as read requests
don't mark themselves as serialising when BDRV_REQ_SERIALISING is given.
Otherwise, someone might add the flag to a read request and will later
be surprised that it didn't work.
> - if (!(flags & BDRV_REQ_NO_SERIALISING)) {
> - bdrv_wait_serialising_requests(req);
> - }
> + bdrv_wait_serialising_requests(req);
>
> if (flags & BDRV_REQ_COPY_ON_READ) {
> int64_t pnum;
> @@ -1711,7 +1705,7 @@ int coroutine_fn bdrv_co_preadv_part(BdrvChild *child,
> bdrv_inc_in_flight(bs);
>
> /* Don't do copy-on-read if we read data before write operation */
> - if (atomic_read(&bs->copy_on_read) && !(flags & BDRV_REQ_NO_SERIALISING)) {
> + if (atomic_read(&bs->copy_on_read)) {
The comment wants an update, too (or maybe a removal).
> flags |= BDRV_REQ_COPY_ON_READ;
> }
>
> @@ -1852,8 +1846,6 @@ bdrv_co_write_req_prepare(BdrvChild *child, int64_t offset, uint64_t bytes,
> return -EPERM;
> }
>
> - /* BDRV_REQ_NO_SERIALISING is only for read operation */
> - assert(!(flags & BDRV_REQ_NO_SERIALISING));
> assert(!(bs->open_flags & BDRV_O_INACTIVE));
> assert((bs->open_flags & BDRV_O_NO_IO) == 0);
> assert(!(flags & ~BDRV_REQ_MASK));
> @@ -3222,9 +3214,7 @@ static int coroutine_fn bdrv_co_copy_range_internal(
>
> /* BDRV_REQ_SERIALISING is only for write operation */
> assert(!(read_flags & BDRV_REQ_SERIALISING));
Here you kept the assertion, so apart from making sense anyway, it would
also be more consistent to keep it above, too. :-)
> - if (!(read_flags & BDRV_REQ_NO_SERIALISING)) {
> - bdrv_wait_serialising_requests(&req);
> - }
> + bdrv_wait_serialising_requests(&req);
>
> ret = src->bs->drv->bdrv_co_copy_range_from(src->bs,
Kevin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-18 16:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-18 13:17 [PATCH 0/3] block/io: serialising request clean up and locking fix Paolo Bonzini
2019-12-18 13:17 ` [PATCH 1/3] block: eliminate BDRV_REQ_NO_SERIALISING Paolo Bonzini
2019-12-18 16:37 ` Kevin Wolf [this message]
2019-12-18 16:43 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-12-18 16:51 ` Kevin Wolf
2019-12-18 13:17 ` [PATCH 2/3] block/io: wait for serialising requests when a request becomes serialising Paolo Bonzini
2019-12-18 16:47 ` Kevin Wolf
2019-12-18 13:17 ` [PATCH 3/3] block/io: take bs->reqs_lock in bdrv_mark_request_serialising Paolo Bonzini
2019-12-18 16:59 ` Kevin Wolf
2019-12-18 17:21 ` Paolo Bonzini
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191218163636.GC4632@linux.fritz.box \
--to=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=pl@kamp.de \
--cc=qemu-block@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).