Am 20.01.2022 um 14:22 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben: > On 1/19/22 19:34, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > So if we go back to a bdrv_invalidate_cache() that does all the graph > > manipulations (and asserts that we're in the main loop) and then have a > > much smaller bdrv_co_invalidate_cache() that basically just calls into > > the driver, would that solve the problem? > > I was going to suggest something similar, and even name the former > bdrv_activate(). Then bdrv_activate() is a graph manipulation function, > while bdrv_co_invalidate_cache() is an I/O function.
I like this. The naming inconsistency between inactivate and invalidate_cache has always bothered me. Kevin
