On 08/17/2018 02:04 PM, John Snow wrote:
Presently we codify the entry point for a job as the "start" callback,
but a more apt name would be "run" to clarify the idea that when this
function returns we consider the job to have "finished," except for
any cleanup which occurs in separate callbacks later.
As part of this clarification, change the signature to include an error
object and a return code. The error ptr is not yet used, and the return
code while captured, will be overwritten by actions in the job_completed
function.
Signed-off-by: John Snow <js...@redhat.com>
---
+++ b/block/backup.c
@@ -480,9 +480,9 @@ static void
backup_incremental_init_copy_bitmap(BackupBlockJob *job)
bdrv_dirty_iter_free(dbi);
}
-static void coroutine_fn backup_run(void *opaque)
+static int coroutine_fn backup_run(Job *opaque_job, Error **errp)
{
- BackupBlockJob *job = opaque;
+ BackupBlockJob *job = container_of(opaque_job, BackupBlockJob, common.job);
Hmm. Here, you used the naming pair 'opaque_job' vs. 'job',...
+++ b/block/commit.c
@@ -134,9 +134,9 @@ static void commit_complete(Job *job, void *opaque)
bdrv_unref(top);
}
-static void coroutine_fn commit_run(void *opaque)
+static int coroutine_fn commit_run(Job *job, Error **errp)
{
- CommitBlockJob *s = opaque;
+ CommitBlockJob *s = container_of(job, CommitBlockJob, common.job);
while in the majority of the other clients, it was 'job' vs. 's'. Is it
worth making these names consistent, or is that too much bikeshed paint?
Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com>
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
