From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8836AC43461 for ; Tue, 11 May 2021 09:13:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BA2D61927 for ; Tue, 11 May 2021 09:13:09 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1BA2D61927 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:33086 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lgORv-0004LA-Tb for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 11 May 2021 05:13:07 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46498) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lgONV-00065f-Lc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 May 2021 05:08:33 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:57206) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lgONT-0005kM-8U for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 May 2021 05:08:32 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1620724110; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=I39c1FOWp9tmdFlrhL+G0jhJXQPMSB5t5BY3X0naQgo=; b=Ys9jsv0+LhRU4mKqXyBjkCuq9j5+hcRVHMgjfUPSAQ/+uBLNfGCrJlNWiBoOKAFVp46HA8 AbBNH3Uvxv1GAfREldFAmnnSaUkAVfdBESQMIFjI9qTv582EGAFt/RIKAXrRGWemIn1VNO M/p2YRToSxZh435P9WEfryanLSaObcQ= Received: from mail-ej1-f71.google.com (mail-ej1-f71.google.com [209.85.218.71]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-181-plILD1DeOwe320bTu8xHEA-1; Tue, 11 May 2021 05:08:28 -0400 X-MC-Unique: plILD1DeOwe320bTu8xHEA-1 Received: by mail-ej1-f71.google.com with SMTP id z13-20020a1709067e4db02903a28208c9bdso5699310ejr.0 for ; Tue, 11 May 2021 02:08:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=I39c1FOWp9tmdFlrhL+G0jhJXQPMSB5t5BY3X0naQgo=; b=blUO78eBwXziBi1Ar7mwxYlTImyL8b0H4MkxxzYgAfiJ73yr0qyJ6xgoCDRVk4d3Ru qvmSrXsBx/ehc0KoPPiufhV/EEJgaAdBE4VCtQ5It+Wy2GrW6UckmWmzJ8X26BXCB9Ag 49opcUBtpEUXR4qEwQqwcijFXBCydKeB4Ko+KBUK+7hBNNdk0+5WUj5adjZW6MbL2zg2 D7kbnRtkgKnmOWK7uywnh7/0Tfmk3yX5F+puPJ1VjOWYdqNBp0MGgayvhQ4SAY9eP1F3 f+KEqxrEvzcqRhPx1mLuNzL66AhJVJFfxdmI9yfdOgKKrlcwIw4Wq/4cb3dARWC/jhVi Z/QA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531R9VMESy6Ton7CnKvavrOkskw2JUP/jY7ZamtM+m/2bfTgjtsk bcR8vjVNWZ+7d4OheQwejLZGxrTcUCzL+W1Yaeo6Cs91gzTgUqNz4dbL4LuGu/c9v+6phgzwun4 ir2FvdHuSQp3tIjE= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:7f97:: with SMTP id f23mr31681589ejr.74.1620724107379; Tue, 11 May 2021 02:08:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzjea3XfgIQhwEn85im1NyNyiCMDDSeKQKD5NW3EpYFxsrWPbLTP8yW+dcfVaubEYkUJbv+6A== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:7f97:: with SMTP id f23mr31681573ejr.74.1620724107213; Tue, 11 May 2021 02:08:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([2a04:ee41:4:31cb:e591:1e1e:abde:a8f1]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b19sm13472991edd.66.2021.05.11.02.08.26 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 11 May 2021 02:08:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] blkdebug: protect rules and suspended_reqs with a lock To: Paolo Bonzini , Eric Blake , qemu-block@nongnu.org References: <20210507151203.39643-1-eesposit@redhat.com> <20210507151203.39643-6-eesposit@redhat.com> <55310f7a-583c-3001-141c-4eac4afd185c@redhat.com> From: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 11:08:26 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=eesposit@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.205.24.124; envelope-from=eesposit@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -34 X-Spam_score: -3.5 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.5 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.698, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Kevin Wolf , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Max Reitz Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On 11/05/2021 10:37, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 07/05/21 17:29, Eric Blake wrote: >>> +    qemu_mutex_lock(&s->lock); >>>       QLIST_FOREACH(r, &s->suspended_reqs, next) { >>>           if (!strcmp(r->tag, tag)) { >>> +            qemu_mutex_unlock(&s->lock); >>>               return true; >>>           } >>>       } >>> +    qemu_mutex_unlock(&s->lock); >>>       return false; >> Would code like this be easier to write by using QEMU_LOCK_GUARD from >> lockable.h? > > Yes, this one would.  In other cases (rule_check) it's not so clear cut. >  It depends whether you prefer to have the simplest code, or rather to > have homogeneous use of either guards or lock/unlock. Makes sense. I will use the lock guard and fix the "yield" typos in the other patches. Thank you, Emanuele