Am 10.05.23 um 08:31 schrieb Juan Quintela:
> I am more towards revert completely
> 9b0950375277467fd74a9075624477ae43b9bb22
>
> and call it a day. On migration we don't use coroutines on the sending
> side (I mean the migration code, the block layer uses coroutines for
> everything/anything).
>
On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 08:31:13AM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote:
> Peter Xu wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> [Adding Kevin to the party]
>
> > On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 03:46:52PM +0200, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> >> To fix it, ensure that the BQL is held during setup. To avoid changing
> >> the behavior for migration
Peter Xu wrote:
Hi
[Adding Kevin to the party]
> On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 03:46:52PM +0200, Fiona Ebner wrote:
>> To fix it, ensure that the BQL is held during setup. To avoid changing
>> the behavior for migration too, introduce conditionals for the setup
>> callbacks that need the BQL and
On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 03:46:52PM +0200, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> To fix it, ensure that the BQL is held during setup. To avoid changing
> the behavior for migration too, introduce conditionals for the setup
> callbacks that need the BQL and only take the lock if it's not already
> held.
The major
In spirit, this is a partial revert of commit 9b09503752 ("migration:
run setup callbacks out of big lock"), but only for the snapshot case.
For snapshots, the bdrv_writev_vmstate() function is used during setup
(in QIOChannelBlock backing the QEMUFile), but not holding the BQL
while calling it
