On 08.11.22 13:37, Kevin Wolf wrote:
We want to change .bdrv_co_drained_begin() back to be a non-coroutine
callback, so in preparation, avoid yielding in its implementation.
Because we increase bs->in_flight and bdrv_drained_begin() polls, the
behaviour is unchanged.
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf
Am 08/11/2022 um 13:37 schrieb Kevin Wolf:
> We want to change .bdrv_co_drained_begin() back to be a non-coroutine
> callback, so in preparation, avoid yielding in its implementation.
>
> Because we increase bs->in_flight and bdrv_drained_begin() polls, the
> behaviour is unchanged.
>
> Signed-o
Am 09.11.2022 um 22:49 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 01:37:26PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > @@ -310,9 +309,20 @@ static void coroutine_fn
> > qed_need_check_timer_entry(void *opaque)
> > (void) ret;
> > }
> >
> > +static void coroutine_fn qed_need_check_timer_
On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 01:37:26PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> @@ -310,9 +309,20 @@ static void coroutine_fn qed_need_check_timer_entry(void
> *opaque)
> (void) ret;
> }
>
> +static void coroutine_fn qed_need_check_timer_entry(void *opaque)
> +{
> +BDRVQEDState *s = opaque;
> +
> +q
Am 09.11.2022 um 10:27 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben:
> On 11/8/22 15:37, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > int ret;
> > trace_qed_need_check_timer_cb(s);
> > @@ -310,9 +309,20 @@ static void coroutine_fn
> > qed_need_check_timer_entry(void *opaque)
> > (void) ret;
> > }
> >
On 11/8/22 15:37, Kevin Wolf wrote:
int ret;
trace_qed_need_check_timer_cb(s);
@@ -310,9 +309,20 @@ static void coroutine_fn qed_need_check_timer_entry(void
*opaque)
(void) ret;
}
+static void coroutine_fn qed_need_check_timer_entry(void *opaque)
+{
+BDRVQEDState
On 11/8/22 15:37, Kevin Wolf wrote:
We want to change .bdrv_co_drained_begin() back to be a non-coroutine
callback, so in preparation, avoid yielding in its implementation.
Because we increase bs->in_flight and bdrv_drained_begin() polls, the
behaviour is unchanged.
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf