| /qemu/ |
| H A D | job-qmp.c | 880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
|
| H A D | blockjob.c | 880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
|
| H A D | qemu-img.c | 880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
|
| H A D | blockdev.c | 880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
|
| H A D | block.c | 880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
|
| /qemu/monitor/ |
| H A D | qmp-cmds.c | 880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
880eeec6 Mon Sep 26 09:32:04 GMT 2022 Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com> jobs: group together API calls under the same job lock
Now that the API offers also _locked() functions, take advantage
of it and give also the caller control to take the lock and call
_locked functions.
This makes sense especially when we have for loops, because it
makes no sense to have:
for(job = job_next(); ...)
where each job_next() takes the lock internally.
Instead we want
JOB_LOCK_GUARD();
for(job = job_next_locked(); ...)
In addition, protect also direct field accesses, by either creating a
new critical section or widening the existing ones.
Note: at this stage, job_{lock/unlock} and job lock guard macros
are *nop*.
Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-Id: <20220926093214.506243-12-eesposit@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
|