On Fri, 04/07 14:05, John Snow wrote: > > > On 04/07/2017 09:28 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 02:54:14PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote: > >> Previously, before test_block_job_start returns, the job can already > >> complete, as a result, the transactional state of other jobs added to > >> the same txn later cannot be handled correctly. > >> > >> Move the block_job_start() calls to callers after > >> block_job_txn_add_job() calls. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng <f...@redhat.com> > >> --- > >> tests/test-blockjob-txn.c | 6 +++++- > >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > CCing John Snow because he looked at block jobs completing during txn > > setup recently. > > > > Stefan > > > > This matches the changes we made to qmp_transaction, but I forgot to (or > didn't take care to) change the qtest as it didn't cause a regression > at the time. > > I wonder if I should make it a runtime error to add a job to a > transaction which has already "started" to make sure that this interface > is not misused, as this test highlights that there were still some > remaining "bad" uses of the interface. > > Regardless... > > Thanks for the CC. ACK
So, shall we merge this for 2.9? Fam
