On Mon, 06/13 11:39, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 12.06.2016 um 08:56 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben: > > We only care about the associated backend, so blk_drain is more > > appropriate here. > > > > Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng <f...@redhat.com> > > [ Cc: John ] > > > --- > > hw/ide/macio.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/hw/ide/macio.c b/hw/ide/macio.c > > index 78c10a0..a8c7321 100644 > > --- a/hw/ide/macio.c > > +++ b/hw/ide/macio.c > > @@ -400,7 +400,7 @@ static void pmac_ide_flush(DBDMA_io *io) > > IDEState *s = idebus_active_if(&m->bus); > > > > if (s->bus->dma->aiocb) { > > - blk_drain_all(); > > + blk_drain(s->blk); > > } > > } > > Looks good to me: > > Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> > > However, even this is still doing too much. We only need to drain the > requests that come from this device and can ignore e.g. block job > requests. > > Now the part that I'm not completely sure about is whether the problem > is here in the IDE emulation and it should track its own requests or > whether it is blk_drain() that actually shouldn't drain the BDS but just > all requests that came in through this specific BB. > > I'm leaning towards the latter, but I'm unsure whether we have cases > where we actually need to drain the whole root BDS. Any opinions?
I agree with you and think the latter is better in this case. I think the one in migration/block.c need to drain the whole root BDS, and others don't. Fam