On 26/06/2017 18:07, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > HI! > > One question here, should not 'bdrv_undo_clear_dirty_bitmap' be under > lock too?
Any call to dirty bitmap functions between bdrv_clear_dirty_bitmap and bdrv_undo_clear_dirty_bitmap is problematic anyway, so bdrv_clear_dirty_bitmap really only needs the lock in the !out case; bdrv_undo_clear_dirty_bitmap is only called when out != NULL. However, I agree it would be cleaner to add the lock there, too. Paolo
