From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:32786) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1THCy6-0000Da-Up for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:13:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1THCy2-0001q4-Uu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:13:26 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:17652) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1THCy2-0001ps-MT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:13:22 -0400 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8RCDL4P010303 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:13:22 -0400 Message-ID: <506442DE.6040902@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:13:18 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf 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> <506441CE.7010606@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <506441CE.7010606@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: Paolo Bonzini Cc: jcody@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Am 27.09.2012 14:08, schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > 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 Now that I read it again, the comment is obsolete.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. Okay. Best you rephrase the whole comment then instead of changing just one word. Kevin