From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35915)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1a9U8C-00069y-VA
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 03:41:49 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1a9U87-0003Ir-RN
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 03:41:48 -0500
Received: from mail-wm0-x231.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::231]:36000)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1a9U87-0003Ie-KU
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 03:41:43 -0500
Received: by mail-wm0-x231.google.com with SMTP id p187so10385870wmp.1
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 00:41:43 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>
References: <1450290827-30508-2-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<20151217011527.GB20007@ad.usersys.redhat.com>
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <56727545.60203@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 09:41:41 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20151217011527.GB20007@ad.usersys.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] scsi: always call notifier on async
	cancellation
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org



On 17/12/2015 02:15, Fam Zheng wrote:
>> >      if (notifier) {
>> >          notifier_list_add(&req->cancel_notifiers, notifier);
>> >      }
>> > -    if (req->io_canceled) {
>> > -        return;
>> > -    }
>> >      scsi_req_ref(req);
>> >      scsi_req_dequeue(req);
>> >      req->io_canceled = true;
>        if (req->aiocb) {
>            blk_aio_cancel_async(req->aiocb);
>        } else {
>            scsi_req_cancel_complete(req);
>        }
> 
> A second TMF must be blk_aio_cancel_async case, otherwise the first one would
> have already completed the request synchronously in scsi_req_cancel_complete.

Good point.

> With that in mind, I think returning early is not a problem. But I suppose
> these are also idempotent so this change is not breaking anything, either.

Right, the issue is that all these calls are idempotent, but the
notifier may not; that is why I prefer to be safe and ensure that all
notifier additions are matched by a notify.  But you explained well why
this should be safe, I'll add a note to the commit message.

Paolo