Am 13.10.2015 um 12:39 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben: > > > 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()?
It's not very obvious what bdrv_unlock() refers to, so I prefer the current naming. Just making sure that the comment for bdrv_drained_begin explains the exact semantics should be good enough. Kevin
