On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 12:30:00PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]>
Resuming more of my review...
> ---
> block/block-backend.c | 18 +++++++++---------
> block/io.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------
> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/block-backend.c b/block/block-backend.c
> index fedf2eca83..52009b8949 100644
> --- a/block/block-backend.c
> +++ b/block/block-backend.c
> @@ -1413,8 +1413,8 @@ typedef struct BlkRwCo {
> BdrvRequestFlags flags;
> } BlkRwCo;
>
> -int blk_pwrite_zeroes(BlockBackend *blk, int64_t offset,
> - int64_t bytes, BdrvRequestFlags flags)
> +int coroutine_fn blk_pwrite_zeroes(BlockBackend *blk, int64_t offset,
> + int64_t bytes, BdrvRequestFlags flags)
Tracking down all callers of blk_pwrite_zeroes is not as trivial as in
the previous patches. But the very first one I checked:
block.c: create_file_fallback_zero_first_sector()
is neither marked coroutine_fn, nor does it have the "if
(qemu_in_coroutine())" guard. And block.c is not touched in this
patch series, per the diffstat in 0/26. Am I missing something?
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
