On 16.04.2014 16:41, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 12.04.2014 um 20:57 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
Implement block_job_complete_sync() by doing the exact same thing as
block_job_cancel_sync() does, only with calling block_job_complete()
instead of block_job_cancel().
Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com>
---
blockjob.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
include/block/blockjob.h | 15 +++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/blockjob.c b/blockjob.c
index b3ce14c..d12f3ea 100644
--- a/blockjob.c
+++ b/blockjob.c
@@ -165,7 +165,9 @@ static void block_job_cancel_cb(void *opaque, int ret)
data->cb(data->opaque, ret);
}
-int block_job_cancel_sync(BlockJob *job)
+static int block_job_finish_sync(BlockJob *job,
+ void (*finish)(BlockJob *, Error **errp),
+ Error **errp)
{
struct BlockCancelData data;
BlockDriverState *bs = job->bs;
@@ -181,13 +183,31 @@ int block_job_cancel_sync(BlockJob *job)
data.ret = -EINPROGRESS;
job->cb = block_job_cancel_cb;
Rename this as block_job_finish_cb?
Yes, that makes sense.
Max
