Am 04.08.2021 um 10:25 hat Max Reitz geschrieben: > On 03.08.21 16:34, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > Am 26.07.2021 um 16:46 hat Max Reitz geschrieben: > > > We must check whether the job is force-cancelled early in our main loop, > > > most importantly before any `continue` statement. For example, we used > > > to have `continue`s before our current checking location that are > > > triggered by `mirror_flush()` failing. So, if `mirror_flush()` kept > > > failing, force-cancelling the job would not terminate it. > > > > > > A job being force-cancelled should be treated the same as the job having > > > failed, so put the check in the same place where we check `s->ret < 0`. > > > > > > Buglink: https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/462 > > > Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com> > > > --- > > > block/mirror.c | 7 +------ > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/block/mirror.c b/block/mirror.c > > > index 72e02fa34e..46d1a1e5a2 100644 > > > --- a/block/mirror.c > > > +++ b/block/mirror.c > > > @@ -993,7 +993,7 @@ static int coroutine_fn mirror_run(Job *job, Error > > > **errp) > > > mirror_wait_for_any_operation(s, true); > > > } > > > - if (s->ret < 0) { > > > + if (s->ret < 0 || job_is_cancelled(&s->common.job)) { > > > ret = s->ret; > > > goto immediate_exit; > > > } > > > @@ -1078,8 +1078,6 @@ static int coroutine_fn mirror_run(Job *job, Error > > > **errp) > > > break; > > > } > > > - ret = 0; > > > - > > > if (job_is_ready(&s->common.job) && !should_complete) { > > > delay_ns = (s->in_flight == 0 && > > > cnt == 0 ? BLOCK_JOB_SLICE_TIME : 0); > > > @@ -1087,9 +1085,6 @@ static int coroutine_fn mirror_run(Job *job, Error > > > **errp) > > > trace_mirror_before_sleep(s, cnt, job_is_ready(&s->common.job), > > > delay_ns); > > > job_sleep_ns(&s->common.job, delay_ns); > > > - if (job_is_cancelled(&s->common.job)) { > > > - break; > > > - } > > I think it was intentional that the check is here because it means > > skipping the job_sleep_ns() and instead cancelling immediately, and we > > probably still want that. Between your check above and here, the > > coroutine can yield, so cancellation could have been newly requested. > > I’m afraid I don’t quite understand.
Hm, I don't either. Somehow I thought job_sleep_ns() was after the check, while quoting the exact hunk that shows that it comes before it... I'm still not sure if sleeping before exiting is really useful, but it seems we never cared about that. Kevin
