Re: [PATCH v10 07/12] parallels: Move check of cluster outside image to a separate function

[Hanna Czenczek <hreitz@redhat.com>]

On 10.03.23 12:08, Alexander Ivanov wrote:
>
>
> On 3/7/23 13:17, Hanna Czenczek wrote:
>> On 03.02.23 10:18, Alexander Ivanov wrote:
>>> We will add more and more checks so we need a better code structure in
>>> parallels_co_check. Let each check performs in a separate loop in a
>>> separate helper.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Ivanov <alexander.ivanov@virtuozzo.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Denis V. Lunev <den@openvz.org>
>>> ---
>>>   block/parallels.c | 81 
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>>>   1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/block/parallels.c b/block/parallels.c
>>> index 02fbaee1f2..f9acee1fa8 100644
>>> --- a/block/parallels.c
>>> +++ b/block/parallels.c
>>> @@ -438,14 +438,13 @@ static void 
>>> parallels_check_unclean(BlockDriverState *bs,
>>>       }
>>>   }
>>>   -static int coroutine_fn parallels_co_check(BlockDriverState *bs,
>>> -                                           BdrvCheckResult *res,
>>> -                                           BdrvCheckMode fix)
>>> +static int parallels_check_outside_image(BlockDriverState *bs,
>>> +                                         BdrvCheckResult *res,
>>> +                                         BdrvCheckMode fix)
>>
>> I wonder, should we mark this function coroutine_fn?  And with the 
>> graph lock changes that happened in the meantime, probably also 
>> GRAPH_RDLOCK (because it’s calling bdrv_getlength()).
>>
>> Hanna
>>
> Thank you for your review.
>
> It seems, parallels_collect_statistics(), parallels_check_unclean() 
> and parallels_set_bat_entry() also should be marked as coroutine_fn, 
> shouldn't they?

There should be no harm in doing so.  I wasn’t mentioning it just 
because those functions don’t call other coroutine functions themselves, 
so I think it doesn’t really matter.

Hanna