On 01/08/2017 02:14, John Snow wrote: > I may need some nudging towards understanding what the right solution > here is, though. Should the blk_aio_flush assume that there always is a > root BDS? should it not assume that?
I think blk_aio_flush is not special. If there is no root BDS, either you return -ENOMEDIUM, or you crash. But all functions should be doing the same. The former makes sense, but right now blk_prwv for one are crashing if there is no root BDS so the minimum patch would fix the caller rather than blk_aio_flush. Paolo > It's difficult for me to understand right now if the bug is in the > expectation for the blk_ functions and the caller should be amended, or > if you need changes to the way the blk_ functions are trying to > increment a counter that doesn't exist. > > I can handle the former fairly easily; if it's the latter, I'm afraid > it's stuck in the middle of some of your changes and I'd need a stronger > hint.
