On 02/03/2015 07:01 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 03/02/2015 10:22, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> Paolo, I think it's rather surprising that iov_send_recv() modifies its >> iov. The modification is undone at the end, so you seem to have >> considered that a caller might be reusing it after and you can't "use it >> up", but we still get problems with concurrent accesses. > > Yes, I wasn't thinking of concurrent accesses indeed. But I wasn't the > author of iov_send_recv(), I just took it from sheepdog. :) > >> Was it an intentional design decision that iov_send_recv() is the sole >> owner of the iov and the caller must duplicate it if it's used elsewhere >> concurrently? >> >> Otherwise I would suggest to fix iov_send_recv(), and possibly try and >> make all the qiov/iov arguments in the block layer const. > > I agree. However, it's not a small change. I think Wen's patch is okay > with a FIXME comment added.
Hi, kevin What should I do next? Add a comment and resend it? Thanks Wen Congyang > > Paolo > . >