Re: [PATCH v3 03/16] job.h: define locked functions

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 1/21/22 17:04, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> > The split was proposed in previous versions, but Vladimir did not 
> > really like it and suggested to send it as a separate series:
>
> I didn't really like it as it seemed unusual and unobvious to me. But if 
> we already accepted similar split for generic block layer, no way for me 
> to resist :) And if we follow new logic of generic block layer in jobs, 
> it's not "unusual" any more.

Either way I think it's okay to have it as a follow-up.  The explicit 
naming in the API is a bit verbose but definitely clearer, so it's okay 
to order different than the graph/IO split.  In that case we weren't 
even sure, until you went through all the testcase failures, that a 
_locked or rather "_drained" API was possible.

Paolo