Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/6] block/dirty-bitmaps: rename frozen predicate helper

[Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>]

18.02.2019 16:57, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> 14.02.2019 2:23, John Snow wrote:
>> "Frozen" was a good description a long time ago, but it isn't adequate now.
>> Rename the frozen predicate to has_successor to make the semantics of the
>> predicate more clear to outside callers.
>>
>> In the process, remove some calls to frozen() that no longer semantically
>> make sense. For enabled and disabled in particular, it's actually okay for
>> the internals to do this but only forbidden for users to invoke them, and
> 
> I'm a bit lost in this paragraph.. to this - what?, to invoke them - whom?
> I think, it would be simpler for me to read patch itself :)
> 
>> all of the QMP entry uses already check against qmp_locked.
>>
>> Several other assertions really want to check that the bitmap isn't in-use
>> by another operation -- use the qmp_locked function for this instead, which
>> presently also checks for has_successor.
> 
> hm, you mean user_locked, not qmp_locked.
> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>   block/dirty-bitmap.c           | 32 +++++++++++++++++---------------
>>   include/block/dirty-bitmap.h   |  2 +-
>>   migration/block-dirty-bitmap.c |  2 +-
>>   3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/block/dirty-bitmap.c b/block/dirty-bitmap.c
>> index 101383b3af..639ebc0645 100644
>> --- a/block/dirty-bitmap.c
>> +++ b/block/dirty-bitmap.c
>> @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ struct BdrvDirtyBitmap {
>>       HBitmap *meta;              /* Meta dirty bitmap */
>>       bool qmp_locked;            /* Bitmap is locked, it can't be modified
>>                                      through QMP */
>> -    BdrvDirtyBitmap *successor; /* Anonymous child; implies frozen status */
>> +    BdrvDirtyBitmap *successor; /* Anonymous child; implies user_locked state */
> 
> aha, looks like a good moment to fix preexisting misalignment of the comment,
> but new line is exactly 80 characters length, so, not a good moment)

and there was no any misalignment, only thunderbird bug...



-- 
Best regards,
Vladimir