Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> writes: > Am 13.09.2019 um 21:54 hat John Snow geschrieben: >> >> >> On 9/13/19 11:25 AM, Sergio Lopez wrote: >> > do_drive_backup() already acquires the AioContext, so release it >> > before the call. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Sergio Lopez <s...@redhat.com> >> > --- >> > blockdev.c | 6 +----- >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/blockdev.c b/blockdev.c >> > index fbef6845c8..3927fdab80 100644 >> > --- a/blockdev.c >> > +++ b/blockdev.c >> > @@ -1783,20 +1783,16 @@ static void drive_backup_prepare(BlkActionState >> > *common, Error **errp) >> > >> > aio_context = bdrv_get_aio_context(bs); >> > aio_context_acquire(aio_context); >> > - > > Are you removing this unrelated empty line intentionally?
Yes. In the sense of that whole set of lines being a "open drained section" block. >> > /* Paired with .clean() */ >> > bdrv_drained_begin(bs); >> >> Do we need to make this change to blockdev_backup_prepare as well? > > Actually, the whole structure feels a bit wrong. We get the bs here and > take its lock, then release the lock again and forget the reference, > only to do both things again inside do_drive_backup(). > > The way snapshots work is that the "normal" snapshot commands are > wrappers that turn it into a single-entry transaction. Then you have > only one code path where you can resolve the ID and take the lock just > once. So maybe backup should work like this, too? I'm neither opposed nor in favor, but I think this is outside the scope of this patch series. Sergio.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
