Am 23.05.2023 um 23:38 hat Fabiano Rosas geschrieben: > Some callers of this function are about to be converted to use > coroutines, so allow it to be executed both inside and outside a > coroutine. > > Signed-off-by: Fabiano Rosas <faro...@suse.de>
This is not a sufficient justification for introducing a new mixed function (we want to get rid of them, not add new ones). You need to explain why the new coroutine callers can't directly call bdrv_co_get_allocated_file_size() instead of going through the wrapper. This is usually only the case if you have a function that doesn't know whether it runs in coroutine context or not. Functions that you explicitly convert to coroutine_fn know for sure. > include/block/block-io.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/include/block/block-io.h b/include/block/block-io.h > index a27e471a87..c1f96faca5 100644 > --- a/include/block/block-io.h > +++ b/include/block/block-io.h > @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ int64_t co_wrapper_mixed_bdrv_rdlock > bdrv_getlength(BlockDriverState *bs); > int64_t coroutine_fn GRAPH_RDLOCK > bdrv_co_get_allocated_file_size(BlockDriverState *bs); > > -int64_t co_wrapper_bdrv_rdlock > +int64_t co_wrapper_mixed_bdrv_rdlock > bdrv_get_allocated_file_size(BlockDriverState *bs); You're changing bdrv_get_allocated_file_size() (which is the function you really mean), but the subject line talks about bdrv_co_get_allocated_file_size(). Kevin
