From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F564C433EF for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 17:59:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:51612 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ngs8E-00032K-CS for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 13:59:18 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43632) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ngs7F-00021z-Cb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 13:58:17 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.124]:50207) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ngs7C-0004GJ-6J for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 13:58:15 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1650391093; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=QRr+A1qUEQetGXB98M8xPGw9Nlwdjnz/hvBS0pJkeaY=; b=Gq8sUBD/f+sKH/9eiN8IqSW5xjHVcJQOgX6/PHlJLBo26O7aakP9LRN0MLuiRa63VeasCM O2cYEGvAjV2o3kwUz3v42KXdQciHlNNuDDSss0x1CbqCPn3aTMTMTvYHNtT+/XYk2KsxOm 47sYmFy8IaxHvq0xBx3NZxB/jHwIf+0= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-475-5DPCPspoNaCvsykg-gPgLA-1; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 13:58:10 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 5DPCPspoNaCvsykg-gPgLA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC874805F63; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 17:58:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.2.17.175]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47709200BC61; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 17:57:56 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 12:57:54 -0500 From: Eric Blake To: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/26] block: remove incorrect coroutine_fn annotations Message-ID: <20220419175006.q52jsc3yqodmqlj7@redhat.com> References: <20220415131900.793161-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20220415131900.793161-2-pbonzini@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20220415131900.793161-2-pbonzini@redhat.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20211029-35-db88c3 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.11.54.4 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=eblake@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Description: ify-labels-then-hide>-deleted Content-Disposition: inline Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.129.124; envelope-from=eblake@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -28 X-Spam_score: -2.9 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.082, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, hreitz@redhat.com, qemu-block@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 03:18:35PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini Might be nice to document in the commit message why the annotation was incorrect, so someone stumbling across this commit in a bisect but otherwise unfamiliar with the rules of when to annotate doesn't get lost. If I understand right, the argument is more-or-less: This function defers to the generated blk_do_pwritev_part, which is safe to call outside coroutine context. But although the commit message is weak, the change itself appears correct from what I have observed with the annotation in other places. Reviewed-by: Eric Blake > --- > block/block-backend.c | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/block/block-backend.c b/block/block-backend.c > index e0e1aff4b1..fedf2eca83 100644 > --- a/block/block-backend.c > +++ b/block/block-backend.c > @@ -1391,10 +1391,10 @@ int coroutine_fn blk_co_pwritev(BlockBackend *blk, int64_t offset, > return blk_co_pwritev_part(blk, offset, bytes, qiov, 0, flags); > } > > -static int coroutine_fn blk_pwritev_part(BlockBackend *blk, int64_t offset, > - int64_t bytes, > - QEMUIOVector *qiov, size_t qiov_offset, > - BdrvRequestFlags flags) > +static int blk_pwritev_part(BlockBackend *blk, int64_t offset, > + int64_t bytes, > + QEMUIOVector *qiov, size_t qiov_offset, > + BdrvRequestFlags flags) > { > int ret; > > -- > 2.35.1 > > > -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org