From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35554)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1buHAQ-0006Cr-59
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 06:53:46 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1buHAO-0004Qi-7G
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 06:53:45 -0400
Sender: Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>
References: <1476267508-19499-1-git-send-email-xiecl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <ca1b07b0-be7e-78d2-7c09-6016c23e0c71@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:53:32 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1476267508-19499-1-git-send-email-xiecl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] nbd: Use CoQueue for free_sema instead of
 CoMutex
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: Changlong Xie <xiecl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>, qemu devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, qemu block <qemu-block@nongnu.org>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>, Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com>, Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>, Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Cc: zhanghailiang <zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com>, Wen Congyang <wency@cn.fujitsu.com>



On 12/10/2016 12:18, Changlong Xie wrote:
> +    if (s->in_flight == MAX_NBD_REQUESTS) {
> +        qemu_co_queue_wait(&s->free_sema);
>          assert(s->in_flight < MAX_NBD_REQUESTS);
>      }

I was wondering if this should be a while loop instead, but the
assertion protects against that.  So:

Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>