On 13/10/2015 11:31, Kevin Wolf wrote: > This would mean that once you've sent an I/O request inside a drain > section, you have to expect that more internal I/O might be going on > after the request has completed. If you don't want this, you have to > issue another bdrv_drain() or use a nested bdrv_drained_begin/end() > section.
Yes. > Sounds reasonable enough to me, but I guess this should be explicitly > documented. I agree. Perhaps bdrv_drained_begin/end() could be renamed to bdrv_drain_and_lock() / bdrv_unlock()? Paolo
