On 7/6/22 15:59, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
Am 06/07/2022 um 14:36 schrieb Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito:
Am 06/07/2022 um 14:23 schrieb Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy:
On 7/6/22 15:05, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
Am 05/07/2022 um 17:01 schrieb Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy:
On
Am 06/07/2022 um 14:36 schrieb Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito:
>
>
> Am 06/07/2022 um 14:23 schrieb Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy:
>> On 7/6/22 15:05, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 05/07/2022 um 17:01 schrieb Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy:
On 6/29/22 17:15, Emanuele Giuseppe
Am 06/07/2022 um 14:23 schrieb Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy:
> On 7/6/22 15:05, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 05/07/2022 um 17:01 schrieb Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy:
>>> On 6/29/22 17:15, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
Just as done with job.h, create _locked()
On 7/6/22 15:05, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
Am 05/07/2022 um 17:01 schrieb Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy:
On 6/29/22 17:15, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
Just as done with job.h, create _locked() functions in blockjob.h
We modify not only blockjob.h, I'd s/blockjob.h/blockjob/ in
Am 05/07/2022 um 17:01 schrieb Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy:
> On 6/29/22 17:15, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
>> Just as done with job.h, create _locked() functions in blockjob.h
>
> We modify not only blockjob.h, I'd s/blockjob.h/blockjob/ in subject.
>
> Also, we start to introduce
On 6/29/22 17:15, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
Just as done with job.h, create _locked() functions in blockjob.h
We modify not only blockjob.h, I'd s/blockjob.h/blockjob/ in subject.
Also, we start to introduce _locked block_job_* APIs.
Does it mean that BlockJob and Job share the
Am 05/07/2022 um 09:58 schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 10:15:26AM -0400, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
>> +BlockJob *block_job_next(BlockJob *bjob)
>> {
>> -Job *job = job_get(id);
>> +JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
>> +return block_job_next_locked(bjob);
>> +}
>
> This
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 10:15:26AM -0400, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
> +BlockJob *block_job_next(BlockJob *bjob)
> {
> -Job *job = job_get(id);
> +JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
> +return block_job_next_locked(bjob);
> +}
This seems unsafe for the same reason as job_ref(). How can the
Just as done with job.h, create _locked() functions in blockjob.h
These functions will be later useful when caller has already taken
the lock. All blockjob _locked functions call job _locked functions.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by:
