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.iva...@virtuozzo.com>
Reviewed-by: Denis V. Lunev <d...@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?
