On Tue, 04/11 13:05, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 10.04.2017 um 17:05 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben: > > v3: Respin the unmerged changes from v2 and include one new fix: > > > > (Yes, it is a big series for the last -rc, and I personally prefer the > > v2 > > approach for the 4-9 part of the problem, which is much more > > mechanical.) > > > > - 1, 2 are redoing previous patch 4, using > > bdrv_parent_drained_begin/end. > > [Kevin] > > Also fix the ordering against aio_context_release. [Stefan] > > - 3 is unchanged from patch 6 in v2. > > - 4-9 are reworking of patch 5 following Paolo's suggestion, which > > allowed > > better patch split. > > - 10 is finding of a latent bug, which is revealed by patch 9. > > > > v2: - Drop patch 4 in v1. A second thought made me feel neither it nor > > Kevin's > > suggestion to move the BH process to > > bdrv_drain_recurse/BDRV_POLL_WHILE > > is a complete fix. So leave it for a separate patch. > > - Add rev-by to patches 1, 3, 4. > > - Split from patch 1 in v1 and add patch 2, for the new assertions. > > [Kevin] > > - Rewrite patch 5. Fix block job's co when a BDS is moved to a different > > aio context. [Kevin] > > - Add patch 6. > > > > Crashes are reported on dataplane devices when doing snapshot and commit > > under > > guest I/O. > > > > With this series, Ed's test case '176' now passes: > > > > https://github.com/skyportsystems/qemu-1/commits/eswierk-iotests-2.9 > > I had only two points for this series. The first is that it adds unused > functions, which doesn't hurt (but I might just send a PATCH 11/10 to > remove them again). The second one is that some sheepdog code is > suspicious, but if anything it just means that this series is incomplete, > so not a show stopper either. > > Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com>
Thanks, I'll squash in the removal patch and send a pull request for 2.9. Fam