From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33297)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1adZP1-0004Tx-BX
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 03:23:32 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1adZP0-0004n1-GS
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 03:23:31 -0500
Sender: Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>
References: <1455645388-32401-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<1455645388-32401-10-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<20160309081305.GH17947@ad.usersys.redhat.com>
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <56DFDD7E.2000105@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 09:23:26 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160309081305.GH17947@ad.usersys.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 09/16] block: wait for all pending I/O when
 doing synchronous requests
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-block@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com



On 09/03/2016 09:13, Fam Zheng wrote:
>> > @@ -352,7 +352,9 @@ static void qed_start_need_check_timer(BDRVQEDState *s)
>> >  static void qed_cancel_need_check_timer(BDRVQEDState *s)
>> >  {
>> >      trace_qed_cancel_need_check_timer(s);
>> > -    timer_del(s->need_check_timer);
>> > +    if (s->need_check_timer) {
>> > +        timer_del(s->need_check_timer);
>> > +    }
>> >  }
> Not clear why this change is needed in this patch, but it is obviously not
> wrong.  If this is to mask a bug, it at least deserves a comment.
> 
> The other parts of the patch looks good to me.

I need to check. :)

Paolo