From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE04E62930 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 15:16:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CB16218364 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 15:16:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id B452118357 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 15:16:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 842B145F54 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 15:16:23 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 15:16:22 +0100 From: Wolfgang Bumiller To: Stefan Reiter Cc: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Message-ID: <20201027141622.xom5xghfujman3fb@olga.proxmox.com> References: <20201022121118.5504-1-s.reiter@proxmox.com> <20201022121118.5504-2-s.reiter@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201022121118.5504-2-s.reiter@proxmox.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.013 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu 1/2] PVE: Don't expect complete_cb to be called outside coroutine X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 14:16:54 -0000 On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 02:11:17PM +0200, Stefan Reiter wrote: > We're at the mercy of the rest of QEMU here, and it sometimes decides to > call pvebackup_complete_cb from a coroutine. This really doesn't matter > to us, so don't assert and crash on it. > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Reiter > --- > pve-backup.c | 7 +++---- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/pve-backup.c b/pve-backup.c > index 53cf23ed5a..9179754dcb 100644 > --- a/pve-backup.c > +++ b/pve-backup.c > @@ -318,19 +318,18 @@ static void coroutine_fn pvebackup_co_complete_stream(void *opaque) > > static void pvebackup_complete_cb(void *opaque, int ret) > { > - assert(!qemu_in_coroutine()); > - > PVEBackupDevInfo *di = opaque; > di->completed_ret = ret; > > /* > * Schedule stream cleanup in async coroutine. close_image and finish might > - * take a while, so we can't block on them here. > + * take a while, so we can't block on them here. This way it also doesn't > + * matter if we're already running in a coroutine or not. > * Note: di is a pointer to an entry in the global backup_state struct, so > * it stays valid. > */ > Coroutine *co = qemu_coroutine_create(pvebackup_co_complete_stream, di); > - aio_co_schedule(qemu_get_aio_context(), co); > + aio_co_enter(qemu_get_aio_context(), co); Shouldn't this be decided based on `qemu_in_coroutine()`? Or are we allowed to call enter regardless, I forgot...? > } > > static void coroutine_fn pvebackup_co_cancel(void *opaque) > -- > 2.20.1