Am 23.09.2022 um 14:52 hat Hanna Reitz geschrieben: > All implementations of bdrv_child_get_parent_aio_context() are IO_CODE > (or do not mark anything in the case of block jobs), so this too can be > IO_CODE. By the definition of "I/O API functions" in block-io.h, this > is a strict relaxation, as I/O code can be run from both GS and I/O code > arbitrarily. > > Signed-off-by: Hanna Reitz <hre...@redhat.com>
There are three implementations of .get_parent_aio_context in the tree: 1. child_of_bds_get_parent_aio_context() in block.c This is already IO_CODE(), good. 2. child_job_get_parent_aio_context() in blockjob.c This is explicitly marked GLOBAL_STATE_CODE() after Emanuele's series to avoid the AioContext lock in jobs. I suppose it could be made IO_CODE() if it also used JOB_LOCK_GUARD(). 3. blk_root_get_parent_aio_context() in block-backend.c This doesn't have any annotation, but it only calls blk_get_aio_context(), which is IO_CODE. So this one is good, too. Seems we just have a semantic merge conflict with Emanuele's series. Can you rebase on top of my tree? Kevin
