From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:60162) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1THCtj-00071C-L0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:09:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1THCtd-0000Ep-U0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:08:55 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58222) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1THCtd-0000El-LJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:08:49 -0400 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8RC8nbK008790 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:08:49 -0400 Message-ID: <506441CE.7010606@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:08:46 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1348675011-8794-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1348675011-8794-4-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <5064409D.2080306@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5064409D.2080306@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 03/45] block: fix documentation of block_job_cancel_sync List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: jcody@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Il 27/09/2012 14:03, Kevin Wolf ha scritto: >> > /** >> > - * block_job_cancel: >> > + * block_job_cancel_sync: >> > * @job: The job to be canceled. >> > * >> > - * Asynchronously cancel the job and wait for it to reach a quiescent >> > + * Synchronously cancel the job and wait for it to reach a quiescent >> > * state. Note that the completion callback will still be called >> > * asynchronously, hence it is *not* valid to call #bdrv_delete >> > * immediately after #block_job_cancel_sync. Users of block jobs > I still don't agree with the s/Async/Sync/, in my opinion it contradicts > the rest of the comment. If it did cancel the job synchronously, then > the job would be immediately completed, and there would be no need to > wait for a quiescent state nor would the completion callback occur later. Now that I read it again, the comment is obsolete. block_job_cancel_sync stalls until block_job_cancel_cb is called, and that calls the completion callback. Paolo