Re: acceptance-system-fedora failures

[Pavel Dovgalyuk]

On 07.10.2020 14:22, Alex Bennée wrote:
> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > On 10/7/20 10:51 AM, Pavel Dovgalyuk wrote:
> > > On 07.10.2020 11:23, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > > > On 07/10/2020 09.13, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > > > Thanks, that was helpful. ... and the winner is:
> > > >
> > > >       commit   55adb3c45620c31f29978f209e2a44a08d34e2da
> > > >       Author:  John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>
> > > >       Date:    Fri Jul 24 01:23:00 2020 -0400
> > > >       Subject: ide: cancel pending callbacks on SRST
> > > >
> > > > ... starting with this commit, the tests starts failing. John, any
> > > > idea what
> > > > might be causing this?
> > >
> > > This patch includes the following lines:
> > >
> > > +        aio_bh_schedule_oneshot(qemu_get_aio_context(),
> > > +                                ide_bus_perform_srst, bus);
> > >
> > > replay_bh_schedule_oneshot_event should be used instead of this
> > > function, because it synchronizes non-deterministic BHs.
> >
> > Why do we have 2 different functions? BH are already complex
> > enough, and we need to also think about the replay API...
> >
> > What about the other cases such vhost-user (blk/net), virtio-blk?
>
> This does seem like something that should be wrapped up inside
> aio_bh_schedule_oneshot itself or maybe we need a
> aio_bh_schedule_transaction_oneshot to distinguish it from the other
> uses the function has.

Maybe there should be two functions:
- one for the guest modification
- one for internal qemu things

The first one may be implemented though the rr+second one.
Maybe replay_ prefix is confusing and the whole BH interface should look 
like that?


Pavel Dovgalyuk