[03/11] block: add transactional callbacks feature

The goal here is to add a new method to transactions that allows
developers to specify a callback that will get invoked only once
all jobs spawned by a transaction are completed, allowing developers
the chance to perform actions conditionally pending complete success
or complete failure.

In order to register the new callback to be invoked, a user must request
a callback pointer and closure by calling new_transaction_wrapper, which
creates a wrapper around a closure and callback that would originally have
been passed to e.g. backup_start().

The function will return a function pointer and a new closure to be passed
instead. The transaction system will effectively intercept these callbacks
and execute the desired actions upon reception of all intercepted callbacks.

This means that the registered callbacks will be called after all other
transaction actions that requested a callback have completed. The feature
has no knowledge of jobs spawned without informing the BlkTransactionList.

For an example of how to use the feature, please skip ahead to:
'block: drive_backup transaction callback support' which serves as an example
for how to hook in drive_backup (or any block job launched by transactions).


Note 1: Defining a callback method alone is not sufficient to have the new
        method invoked. You must call new_transaction_wrapper AND ensure the
        callback it returns to you is used as the callback for the job.

Note 2: You can use this feature for any system that registers completions of
        an action via a callback of the form (void *opaque, int ret), not just
        block job callbacks.

Note 3: new_blk_transaction has no users in this patch, but will in
        the next patch where it will become static and local to blockdev.c.

Signed-off-by: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>
---
 blockdev.c | 225 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 223 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

On 2015-03-04 at 23:15, John Snow wrote:
> The goal here is to add a new method to transactions that allows
> developers to specify a callback that will get invoked only once
> all jobs spawned by a transaction are completed, allowing developers
> the chance to perform actions conditionally pending complete success
> or complete failure.
>
> In order to register the new callback to be invoked, a user must request
> a callback pointer and closure by calling new_transaction_wrapper, which
> creates a wrapper around a closure and callback that would originally have
> been passed to e.g. backup_start().
>
> The function will return a function pointer and a new closure to be passed
> instead. The transaction system will effectively intercept these callbacks
> and execute the desired actions upon reception of all intercepted callbacks.
>
> This means that the registered callbacks will be called after all other
> transaction actions that requested a callback have completed. The feature
> has no knowledge of jobs spawned without informing the BlkTransactionList.
>
> For an example of how to use the feature, please skip ahead to:
> 'block: drive_backup transaction callback support' which serves as an example
> for how to hook in drive_backup (or any block job launched by transactions).
>
>
> Note 1: Defining a callback method alone is not sufficient to have the new
>          method invoked. You must call new_transaction_wrapper AND ensure the
>          callback it returns to you is used as the callback for the job.
>
> Note 2: You can use this feature for any system that registers completions of
>          an action via a callback of the form (void *opaque, int ret), not just
>          block job callbacks.
>
> Note 3: new_blk_transaction has no users in this patch, but will in
>          the next patch where it will become static and local to blockdev.c.
>
> Signed-off-by: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>
> ---
>   blockdev.c | 225 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>   1 file changed, 223 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/blockdev.c b/blockdev.c
> index 5120af1..3153ee7 100644
> --- a/blockdev.c
> +++ b/blockdev.c
> @@ -1207,6 +1207,8 @@ static BdrvDirtyBitmap *block_dirty_bitmap_lookup(const char *node,
>   /* New and old BlockDriverState structs for atomic group operations */
>   
>   typedef struct BlkTransactionState BlkTransactionState;
> +typedef struct BlkTransactionList BlkTransactionList;
> +typedef struct BlkTransactionData BlkTransactionData;
>   
>   /* Only prepare() may fail. In a single transaction, only one of commit() or
>      abort() will be called, clean() will always be called if it present. */
> @@ -1221,6 +1223,8 @@ typedef struct BdrvActionOps {
>       void (*abort)(BlkTransactionState *common);
>       /* Clean up resource in the end, can be NULL. */
>       void (*clean)(BlkTransactionState *common);
> +    /* Execute this after +all+ jobs in the transaction finish */
> +    void (*cb)(BlkTransactionState *common);
>   } BdrvActionOps;
>   
>   /*
> @@ -1231,9 +1235,220 @@ typedef struct BdrvActionOps {
>   struct BlkTransactionState {
>       TransactionAction *action;
>       const BdrvActionOps *ops;
> +    BlkTransactionList *list;
> +    void *opaque;
> +    /* Allow external users (callbacks) to reference this obj past .clean() */
> +    int refcount;
> +    /* All transactions in the current group */
>       QSIMPLEQ_ENTRY(BlkTransactionState) entry;
> +    /* Transactions in the current group with callbacks */
> +    QSIMPLEQ_ENTRY(BlkTransactionState) list_entry;

"list_entry" seems very generic and it's hard for me to see a 
fundamental difference to just "entry". How about "cb_entry", or 
"cb_list_entry", or "cb_group_entry" or something like that?

>   };
>   
> +struct BlkTransactionList {
> +    int jobs;     /* Effectively: A refcount */

Good to know, but I'd like the reason why it's called like this to be 
here anyway ("Number of jobs remaining" or I don't know).

> +    int status;   /* Cumulative retcode */

The only places I currently find "retcode" in are linux-user/signal.c 
and tests/image-fuzzer/runner.py. How about the more common "return 
value" (or simply "cumulative status")?

("retcode" reads a bit like "retcon" to me, that's why I had to think 
about it for a second)

> +    QSIMPLEQ_HEAD(actions, BlkTransactionState) actions;
> +};
> +
> +typedef struct BlkTransactionData {
> +    void *opaque; /* Data given to encapsulated callback */
> +    int ret;      /* Return code given to encapsulated callback */
> +} BlkTransactionData;
> +
> +typedef struct BlkTransactionWrapper {
> +    void *opaque; /* Data to be given to encapsulated callback */
> +    void (*callback)(void *opaque, int ret); /* Encapsulated callback */
> +} BlkTransactionWrapper;

I find it pretty difficult to figure out what these objects are each 
for. Care to add comments for that, too?

> +
> +static BlkTransactionList *new_blk_transaction_list(void)
> +{
> +    BlkTransactionList *btl = g_malloc0(sizeof(*btl));

Maybe use g_new0(BlkTransactionList, 1); (It's typesafe! And who doesn't 
love typesafety?).

(Optional, though, the foo = malloc(sizeof(*foo)) pattern is pretty 
wide-spread, and as far as I remember, Markus purposely did not replace 
it by foo = g_new(Foo, 1))

> +
> +    /* Implicit 'job' for qmp_transaction itself */
> +    btl->jobs = 1;

Well, if it is a refcount, just call it that way...

(Update: Okay, I see why you didn't call it that way. Maybe the comment 
needs improvement, like "The transaction itself is a job, too, that 
needs to be completed before the callbacks are called")

> +    QSIMPLEQ_INIT(&btl->actions);
> +    return btl;
> +}
> +
> +static BlkTransactionState *blk_put_transaction_state(BlkTransactionState *bts)
> +{
> +    bts->refcount--;
> +    if (bts->refcount == 0) {
> +        g_free(bts);

How about removing it from the lists it's in? Doesn't appear to be 
necessary, but I'd find it cleaner.

> +        return NULL;
> +    }
> +    return bts;
> +}
> +
> +static void del_blk_transaction_list(BlkTransactionList *btl)
> +{
> +    BlkTransactionState *bts, *bts_next;
> +
> +    /* The list should in normal cases be empty,
> +     * but in case someone really just wants to kibosh the whole deal: */

Thank you for teaching me a new word.

> +    QSIMPLEQ_FOREACH_SAFE(bts, &btl->actions, list_entry, bts_next) {
> +        g_free(bts->opaque);

Urp... Are you sure? :-/

I'd rather have some callback for destroying the object... Apparently 
this will (for now) be always useless overhead, because that callback is 
only calling g_free(), but it's an opaque pointer, so it's not really up 
to you to do anything with it other than passing it around.

> +        blk_put_transaction_state(bts);
> +    }
> +
> +    g_free(btl);
> +}
> +
> +static void blk_run_transaction_callbacks(BlkTransactionList *btl)
> +{
> +    BlkTransactionState *bts, *bts_next;
> +
> +    QSIMPLEQ_FOREACH_SAFE(bts, &btl->actions, list_entry, bts_next) {
> +        if (bts->ops->cb) {
> +            bts->ops->cb(bts);
> +        }
> +
> +        /* Free the BlkTransactionData */
> +        g_free(bts->opaque);

Again... Urp. If you know it's a BlkTransactionData object, please make 
it a BlkTransactionData pointer and don't call it "opaque" if it's not 
so opaque in the end.

> +        bts->opaque = NULL;
> +        blk_put_transaction_state(bts);
> +    }
> +
> +    QSIMPLEQ_INIT(&btl->actions);
> +}
> +
> +static BlkTransactionList *put_blk_transaction_list(BlkTransactionList *btl)
> +{
> +    btl->jobs--;
> +    if (btl->jobs == 0) {

Okay, this is interesting, because on the one hand it makes it clear why 
you did not call it "refcount", while on the other hand this is clearly 
a pattern which looks very much like handling a refcount.

Maybe you could call the function differently, like 
"blk_transaction_list_job_completed()" or something. It's longer, but I 
think it reduces the change of people staring at this thinking "Why is 
'jobs' actually a refcount?".

> +        blk_run_transaction_callbacks(btl);
> +        del_blk_transaction_list(btl);
> +        return NULL;
> +    }
> +    return btl;
> +}
> +
> +static void blk_transaction_complete(BlkTransactionState *common)
> +{
> +    BlkTransactionList *btl = common->list;
> +
> +    /* Add this action into the pile to be completed */
> +    QSIMPLEQ_INSERT_TAIL(&btl->actions, common, list_entry);
> +
> +    /* Inform the list that we have a completion;
> +     * possibly run all the pending actions. */
> +    put_blk_transaction_list(btl);
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * Intercept a callback that was issued due to a transactional action.
> + */
> +static void transaction_callback(void *opaque, int ret)
> +{
> +    BlkTransactionState *common = opaque;
> +    BlkTransactionWrapper *btw = common->opaque;
> +
> +    /* Prepare data for ops->cb() */
> +    BlkTransactionData *btd = g_malloc0(sizeof(*btd));

g_new0(BlkTransactionData, 1);

> +    btd->opaque = btw->opaque;
> +    btd->ret = ret;
> +
> +    /* Transaction state now tracks OUR data */
> +    common->opaque = btd;

Sorry, but I really have a hard time following this opaqueness... Again, 
if you can, please clarify what the objects are for, and it would be 
very nice to separate truly opaque objects from these internally used 
objects (which are managed by you and thus are to be managed by you 
(g_free()), because reusing void * pointers for different kinds of 
objects like this makes my brain go strawberry.

> +
> +    /* Keep track of the amalgamated return code */
> +    common->list->status |= ret;

Hm, I guess you're expecting ret to be -errno. In that case, you'd 
probably rather want "if (ret && (!common->list->status || 
common->list->status == -ENOSPC)) { common->list->status = ret; }" or 
something like that, because bit-OR-ing different -errno values will 
probably not turn out so great.

> +
> +    /* Deliver the intercepted callback FIRST */
> +    btw->callback(btw->opaque, ret);
> +    blk_transaction_complete(common);
> +    g_free(btw);
> +}
> +
> +typedef void (CallbackFn)(void *opaque, int ret);
> +
> +/* Temporary. Removed in the next patch. */

Actually, no. :-)

(remove in patch 7)

Why are you making them non-static in the first place? I see both 
functions mentioned in patch 3 and patch 7 only (except for context in 
patch 6).

> +CallbackFn *new_transaction_wrapper(BlkTransactionState *common,
> +                                    void *opaque,
> +                                    void (*callback)(void *, int),
> +                                    void **new_opaque);
> +
> +void undo_transaction_wrapper(BlkTransactionState *common);
> +
> +/**
> + * Create a new transactional callback wrapper.
> + *
> + * Given a callback and a closure, generate a new
> + * callback and closure that will invoke the
> + * given callback with the given closure.
> + *
> + * After all wrappers in the transactional group have
> + * been processed, each action's .cb() method will be
> + * invoked.
> + *
> + * @common The transactional state to set a callback for.
> + * @opaque A closure intended for the encapsulated callback.
> + * @callback The callback we are encapsulating.
> + * @new_opaque The closure to be used instead of @opaque.
> + *
> + * @return The callback to be used instead of @callback.
> + */
> +CallbackFn *new_transaction_wrapper(BlkTransactionState *common,
> +                                           void *opaque,
> +                                           CallbackFn *callback,
> +                                           void **new_opaque)
> +{
> +    BlkTransactionWrapper *btw = g_malloc0(sizeof(*btw));

g_new0(BlkTransactionWrapper, 1);

> +    assert(new_opaque);
> +
> +    /* Stash the original callback information */
> +    btw->opaque = opaque;
> +    btw->callback = callback;
> +    common->opaque = btw;
> +
> +    /* The BTS will serve as our new closure */
> +    *new_opaque = common;
> +    common->refcount++;
> +
> +    /* Inform the transaction BTL to expect one more return */
> +    common->list->jobs++;
> +
> +    /* Lastly, the actual callback function to handle the interception. */
> +    return transaction_callback;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * Undo any actions performed by the above call.
> + */
> +void undo_transaction_wrapper(BlkTransactionState *common)
> +{
> +    BlkTransactionList *btl = common->list;
> +    BlkTransactionState *bts;
> +    BlkTransactionData *btd;
> +
> +    /* Stage 0: Wrapper was never created: */
> +    if (common->opaque == NULL && common->refcount == 1) {
> +        return;
> +    }
> +
> +    /* Stage 2: Job already completed or was canceled.
> +     * Force an error in the callback data and just invoke the completion
> +     * handler to perform appropriate cleanup for us.
> +     */
> +    QSIMPLEQ_FOREACH(bts, &btl->actions, list_entry) {
> +        if (bts == common) {
> +            btd = common->opaque;
> +            /* Force error for callback */
> +            btd->ret = -1;

No -errno?

> +            common->ops->cb(common);
> +            QSIMPLEQ_REMOVE(&btl->actions, common,
> +                            BlkTransactionState, list_entry);
> +            goto cleanup;
> +        }
> +    }
> +    /* Stage 1: Callback created, but job never launched */
> +    put_blk_transaction_list(common->list);
> + cleanup:
> +    g_free(common->opaque);

urp

> +    blk_put_transaction_state(common);
> +}
> +
>   /* internal snapshot private data */
>   typedef struct InternalSnapshotState {
>       BlkTransactionState common;
> @@ -1775,7 +1990,7 @@ static const BdrvActionOps actions[] = {
>           .instance_size = sizeof(DriveBackupState),
>           .prepare = drive_backup_prepare,
>           .abort = drive_backup_abort,
> -        .clean = drive_backup_clean,
> +        .clean = drive_backup_clean

Probably not intended, I guess.

>       },
>       [TRANSACTION_ACTION_KIND_BLOCKDEV_BACKUP] = {
>           .instance_size = sizeof(BlockdevBackupState),
> @@ -1815,10 +2030,12 @@ void qmp_transaction(TransactionActionList *dev_list, Error **errp)
>   {
>       TransactionActionList *dev_entry = dev_list;
>       BlkTransactionState *state, *next;
> +    BlkTransactionList *btl;
>       Error *local_err = NULL;
>   
>       QSIMPLEQ_HEAD(snap_bdrv_states, BlkTransactionState) snap_bdrv_states;
>       QSIMPLEQ_INIT(&snap_bdrv_states);
> +    btl = new_blk_transaction_list();
>   
>       /* drain all i/o before any operations */
>       bdrv_drain_all();
> @@ -1837,8 +2054,10 @@ void qmp_transaction(TransactionActionList *dev_list, Error **errp)
>           assert(ops->instance_size > 0);
>   
>           state = g_malloc0(ops->instance_size);
> +        state->refcount = 1;
>           state->ops = ops;
>           state->action = dev_info;
> +        state->list = btl;
>           QSIMPLEQ_INSERT_TAIL(&snap_bdrv_states, state, entry);
>   
>           state->ops->prepare(state, &local_err);
> @@ -1869,8 +2088,10 @@ exit:
>           if (state->ops->clean) {
>               state->ops->clean(state);
>           }
> -        g_free(state);
> +        blk_put_transaction_state(state);
>       }
> +
> +    put_blk_transaction_list(btl);
>   }
>   
>   

Sorry, as I said, I need more context on the objects and very much would 
like a separation between truly opaque pointers and not-so-opaque 
pointers, before I can really understand what's going on (or I put more 
effort into it, but since it's always more probable to belong to the 
majority, I guess I won't be the only one getting confused).

Maybe the next patches will clear it up, I don't know.

Max

On 03/17/2015 01:47 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 2015-03-04 at 23:15, John Snow wrote:
>> The goal here is to add a new method to transactions that allows
>> developers to specify a callback that will get invoked only once
>> all jobs spawned by a transaction are completed, allowing developers
>> the chance to perform actions conditionally pending complete success
>> or complete failure.
>>
>> In order to register the new callback to be invoked, a user must request
>> a callback pointer and closure by calling new_transaction_wrapper, which
>> creates a wrapper around a closure and callback that would originally
>> have
>> been passed to e.g. backup_start().
>>
>> The function will return a function pointer and a new closure to be
>> passed
>> instead. The transaction system will effectively intercept these
>> callbacks
>> and execute the desired actions upon reception of all intercepted
>> callbacks.
>>
>> This means that the registered callbacks will be called after all other
>> transaction actions that requested a callback have completed. The feature
>> has no knowledge of jobs spawned without informing the
>> BlkTransactionList.
>>
>> For an example of how to use the feature, please skip ahead to:
>> 'block: drive_backup transaction callback support' which serves as an
>> example
>> for how to hook in drive_backup (or any block job launched by
>> transactions).
>>
>>
>> Note 1: Defining a callback method alone is not sufficient to have the
>> new
>>          method invoked. You must call new_transaction_wrapper AND
>> ensure the
>>          callback it returns to you is used as the callback for the job.
>>
>> Note 2: You can use this feature for any system that registers
>> completions of
>>          an action via a callback of the form (void *opaque, int ret),
>> not just
>>          block job callbacks.
>>
>> Note 3: new_blk_transaction has no users in this patch, but will in
>>          the next patch where it will become static and local to
>> blockdev.c.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>   blockdev.c | 225
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 223 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/blockdev.c b/blockdev.c
>> index 5120af1..3153ee7 100644
>> --- a/blockdev.c
>> +++ b/blockdev.c
>> @@ -1207,6 +1207,8 @@ static BdrvDirtyBitmap
>> *block_dirty_bitmap_lookup(const char *node,
>>   /* New and old BlockDriverState structs for atomic group operations */
>>   typedef struct BlkTransactionState BlkTransactionState;
>> +typedef struct BlkTransactionList BlkTransactionList;
>> +typedef struct BlkTransactionData BlkTransactionData;
>>   /* Only prepare() may fail. In a single transaction, only one of
>> commit() or
>>      abort() will be called, clean() will always be called if it
>> present. */
>> @@ -1221,6 +1223,8 @@ typedef struct BdrvActionOps {
>>       void (*abort)(BlkTransactionState *common);
>>       /* Clean up resource in the end, can be NULL. */
>>       void (*clean)(BlkTransactionState *common);
>> +    /* Execute this after +all+ jobs in the transaction finish */
>> +    void (*cb)(BlkTransactionState *common);
>>   } BdrvActionOps;
>>   /*
>> @@ -1231,9 +1235,220 @@ typedef struct BdrvActionOps {
>>   struct BlkTransactionState {
>>       TransactionAction *action;
>>       const BdrvActionOps *ops;
>> +    BlkTransactionList *list;
>> +    void *opaque;
>> +    /* Allow external users (callbacks) to reference this obj past
>> .clean() */
>> +    int refcount;
>> +    /* All transactions in the current group */
>>       QSIMPLEQ_ENTRY(BlkTransactionState) entry;
>> +    /* Transactions in the current group with callbacks */
>> +    QSIMPLEQ_ENTRY(BlkTransactionState) list_entry;
>
> "list_entry" seems very generic and it's hard for me to see a
> fundamental difference to just "entry". How about "cb_entry", or
> "cb_list_entry", or "cb_group_entry" or something like that?
>
>>   };
>> +struct BlkTransactionList {
>> +    int jobs;     /* Effectively: A refcount */
>
> Good to know, but I'd like the reason why it's called like this to be
> here anyway ("Number of jobs remaining" or I don't know).
>

Yes, it's basically a refcount where the references are held by jobs.

>> +    int status;   /* Cumulative retcode */
>
> The only places I currently find "retcode" in are linux-user/signal.c
> and tests/image-fuzzer/runner.py. How about the more common "return
> value" (or simply "cumulative status")?
>
> ("retcode" reads a bit like "retcon" to me, that's why I had to think
> about it for a second)
>

Sure.

>> +    QSIMPLEQ_HEAD(actions, BlkTransactionState) actions;
>> +};
>> +
>> +typedef struct BlkTransactionData {
>> +    void *opaque; /* Data given to encapsulated callback */
>> +    int ret;      /* Return code given to encapsulated callback */
>> +} BlkTransactionData;
>> +
>> +typedef struct BlkTransactionWrapper {
>> +    void *opaque; /* Data to be given to encapsulated callback */
>> +    void (*callback)(void *opaque, int ret); /* Encapsulated callback */
>> +} BlkTransactionWrapper;
>
> I find it pretty difficult to figure out what these objects are each
> for. Care to add comments for that, too?
>

Will do.

>> +
>> +static BlkTransactionList *new_blk_transaction_list(void)
>> +{
>> +    BlkTransactionList *btl = g_malloc0(sizeof(*btl));
>
> Maybe use g_new0(BlkTransactionList, 1); (It's typesafe! And who doesn't
> love typesafety?).
>
> (Optional, though, the foo = malloc(sizeof(*foo)) pattern is pretty
> wide-spread, and as far as I remember, Markus purposely did not replace
> it by foo = g_new(Foo, 1))
>
>> +
>> +    /* Implicit 'job' for qmp_transaction itself */
>> +    btl->jobs = 1;
>
> Well, if it is a refcount, just call it that way...
>
> (Update: Okay, I see why you didn't call it that way. Maybe the comment
> needs improvement, like "The transaction itself is a job, too, that
> needs to be completed before the callbacks are called")
>

That's exactly the trick in play, here.

>> +    QSIMPLEQ_INIT(&btl->actions);
>> +    return btl;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static BlkTransactionState
>> *blk_put_transaction_state(BlkTransactionState *bts)
>> +{
>> +    bts->refcount--;
>> +    if (bts->refcount == 0) {
>> +        g_free(bts);
>
> How about removing it from the lists it's in? Doesn't appear to be
> necessary, but I'd find it cleaner.
>
>> +        return NULL;
>> +    }
>> +    return bts;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void del_blk_transaction_list(BlkTransactionList *btl)
>> +{
>> +    BlkTransactionState *bts, *bts_next;
>> +
>> +    /* The list should in normal cases be empty,
>> +     * but in case someone really just wants to kibosh the whole
>> deal: */
>
> Thank you for teaching me a new word.
>
>> +    QSIMPLEQ_FOREACH_SAFE(bts, &btl->actions, list_entry, bts_next) {
>> +        g_free(bts->opaque);
>
> Urp... Are you sure? :-/
>
> I'd rather have some callback for destroying the object... Apparently
> this will (for now) be always useless overhead, because that callback is
> only calling g_free(), but it's an opaque pointer, so it's not really up
> to you to do anything with it other than passing it around.
>
>> +        blk_put_transaction_state(bts);
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    g_free(btl);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void blk_run_transaction_callbacks(BlkTransactionList *btl)
>> +{
>> +    BlkTransactionState *bts, *bts_next;
>> +
>> +    QSIMPLEQ_FOREACH_SAFE(bts, &btl->actions, list_entry, bts_next) {
>> +        if (bts->ops->cb) {
>> +            bts->ops->cb(bts);
>> +        }
>> +
>> +        /* Free the BlkTransactionData */
>> +        g_free(bts->opaque);
>
> Again... Urp. If you know it's a BlkTransactionData object, please make
> it a BlkTransactionData pointer and don't call it "opaque" if it's not
> so opaque in the end.
>

A good point. I use this "opaque" pointer to actually hold two very 
specific and knowable things; it's just that those things change during 
the lifetime of the object.

For whatever reason, I decided it was nicer to not have two pointers 
that are never used simultaneously.

I can either make two dedicated fields, or just introduce it as an 
union. The state of the object otherwise dictates which union field to 
access.

Because I am a complicated individual, I am thinking fondly of the union 
right now.

>> +        bts->opaque = NULL;
>> +        blk_put_transaction_state(bts);
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    QSIMPLEQ_INIT(&btl->actions);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static BlkTransactionList
>> *put_blk_transaction_list(BlkTransactionList *btl)
>> +{
>> +    btl->jobs--;
>> +    if (btl->jobs == 0) {
>
> Okay, this is interesting, because on the one hand it makes it clear why
> you did not call it "refcount", while on the other hand this is clearly
> a pattern which looks very much like handling a refcount.
>
> Maybe you could call the function differently, like
> "blk_transaction_list_job_completed()" or something. It's longer, but I
> think it reduces the change of people staring at this thinking "Why is
> 'jobs' actually a refcount?".
>

OK, I'm up for suggestions on naming. I didn't really (deep in my heart) 
expect v1 to be perfect.

I think your main problem here is "jobs" as an integral refcount. Maybe 
"num_jobs" or "jobs_remaining" etc would make it clearer.

And then, sure, "blk_transaction_list_job_completed" would be a fine 
alternative to "put."

>> +        blk_run_transaction_callbacks(btl);
>> +        del_blk_transaction_list(btl);
>> +        return NULL;
>> +    }
>> +    return btl;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void blk_transaction_complete(BlkTransactionState *common)
>> +{
>> +    BlkTransactionList *btl = common->list;
>> +
>> +    /* Add this action into the pile to be completed */
>> +    QSIMPLEQ_INSERT_TAIL(&btl->actions, common, list_entry);
>> +
>> +    /* Inform the list that we have a completion;
>> +     * possibly run all the pending actions. */
>> +    put_blk_transaction_list(btl);
>> +}
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * Intercept a callback that was issued due to a transactional action.
>> + */
>> +static void transaction_callback(void *opaque, int ret)
>> +{
>> +    BlkTransactionState *common = opaque;
>> +    BlkTransactionWrapper *btw = common->opaque;
>> +
>> +    /* Prepare data for ops->cb() */
>> +    BlkTransactionData *btd = g_malloc0(sizeof(*btd));
>
> g_new0(BlkTransactionData, 1);
>
>> +    btd->opaque = btw->opaque;
>> +    btd->ret = ret;
>> +
>> +    /* Transaction state now tracks OUR data */
>> +    common->opaque = btd;
>
> Sorry, but I really have a hard time following this opaqueness... Again,
> if you can, please clarify what the objects are for, and it would be
> very nice to separate truly opaque objects from these internally used
> objects (which are managed by you and thus are to be managed by you
> (g_free()), because reusing void * pointers for different kinds of
> objects like this makes my brain go strawberry.
>

I'll shoot for Raspberry in v2.

>> +
>> +    /* Keep track of the amalgamated return code */
>> +    common->list->status |= ret;
>
> Hm, I guess you're expecting ret to be -errno. In that case, you'd
> probably rather want "if (ret && (!common->list->status ||
> common->list->status == -ENOSPC)) { common->list->status = ret; }" or
> something like that, because bit-OR-ing different -errno values will
> probably not turn out so great.
>

I am only super interested in keeping a zero-or-nonzero cumulative 
status -- the actual error code winds up not being so important. The 
mechanisms here allow the delivery of both the "cumulative" and the 
individual return code to the transactional callback, so error messages 
etc. can fill in the blanks if they need to.

>> +
>> +    /* Deliver the intercepted callback FIRST */
>> +    btw->callback(btw->opaque, ret);
>> +    blk_transaction_complete(common);
>> +    g_free(btw);
>> +}
>> +
>> +typedef void (CallbackFn)(void *opaque, int ret);
>> +
>> +/* Temporary. Removed in the next patch. */
>
> Actually, no. :-)
>
> (remove in patch 7)
>
> Why are you making them non-static in the first place? I see both
> functions mentioned in patch 3 and patch 7 only (except for context in
> patch 6).
>

Won't compile otherwise, because they have no users as of this patch. I 
am trying to keep the size of these patches down and in a sane order.

Once a user is added, we can re-add the static attribute.

>> +CallbackFn *new_transaction_wrapper(BlkTransactionState *common,
>> +                                    void *opaque,
>> +                                    void (*callback)(void *, int),
>> +                                    void **new_opaque);
>> +
>> +void undo_transaction_wrapper(BlkTransactionState *common);
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * Create a new transactional callback wrapper.
>> + *
>> + * Given a callback and a closure, generate a new
>> + * callback and closure that will invoke the
>> + * given callback with the given closure.
>> + *
>> + * After all wrappers in the transactional group have
>> + * been processed, each action's .cb() method will be
>> + * invoked.
>> + *
>> + * @common The transactional state to set a callback for.
>> + * @opaque A closure intended for the encapsulated callback.
>> + * @callback The callback we are encapsulating.
>> + * @new_opaque The closure to be used instead of @opaque.
>> + *
>> + * @return The callback to be used instead of @callback.
>> + */
>> +CallbackFn *new_transaction_wrapper(BlkTransactionState *common,
>> +                                           void *opaque,
>> +                                           CallbackFn *callback,
>> +                                           void **new_opaque)
>> +{
>> +    BlkTransactionWrapper *btw = g_malloc0(sizeof(*btw));
>
> g_new0(BlkTransactionWrapper, 1);
>
>> +    assert(new_opaque);
>> +
>> +    /* Stash the original callback information */
>> +    btw->opaque = opaque;
>> +    btw->callback = callback;
>> +    common->opaque = btw;
>> +
>> +    /* The BTS will serve as our new closure */
>> +    *new_opaque = common;
>> +    common->refcount++;
>> +
>> +    /* Inform the transaction BTL to expect one more return */
>> +    common->list->jobs++;
>> +
>> +    /* Lastly, the actual callback function to handle the
>> interception. */
>> +    return transaction_callback;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * Undo any actions performed by the above call.
>> + */
>> +void undo_transaction_wrapper(BlkTransactionState *common)
>> +{
>> +    BlkTransactionList *btl = common->list;
>> +    BlkTransactionState *bts;
>> +    BlkTransactionData *btd;
>> +
>> +    /* Stage 0: Wrapper was never created: */
>> +    if (common->opaque == NULL && common->refcount == 1) {
>> +        return;
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    /* Stage 2: Job already completed or was canceled.
>> +     * Force an error in the callback data and just invoke the
>> completion
>> +     * handler to perform appropriate cleanup for us.
>> +     */
>> +    QSIMPLEQ_FOREACH(bts, &btl->actions, list_entry) {
>> +        if (bts == common) {
>> +            btd = common->opaque;
>> +            /* Force error for callback */
>> +            btd->ret = -1;
>
> No -errno?
>

Hmm. I suppose I should emulate one. What errno should I emulate for 
"One of your siblings died, and now you also need to take a dirtnap?"

>> +            common->ops->cb(common);
>> +            QSIMPLEQ_REMOVE(&btl->actions, common,
>> +                            BlkTransactionState, list_entry);
>> +            goto cleanup;
>> +        }
>> +    }
>> +    /* Stage 1: Callback created, but job never launched */
>> +    put_blk_transaction_list(common->list);
>> + cleanup:
>> +    g_free(common->opaque);
>
> urp
>

ok, ok! I'm sorry! ... kind of ...

>> +    blk_put_transaction_state(common);
>> +}
>> +
>>   /* internal snapshot private data */
>>   typedef struct InternalSnapshotState {
>>       BlkTransactionState common;
>> @@ -1775,7 +1990,7 @@ static const BdrvActionOps actions[] = {
>>           .instance_size = sizeof(DriveBackupState),
>>           .prepare = drive_backup_prepare,
>>           .abort = drive_backup_abort,
>> -        .clean = drive_backup_clean,
>> +        .clean = drive_backup_clean
>
> Probably not intended, I guess.
>

Did an earlier patch of mine goof this up? The way this patch leaves it 
looks correct.

>>       },
>>       [TRANSACTION_ACTION_KIND_BLOCKDEV_BACKUP] = {
>>           .instance_size = sizeof(BlockdevBackupState),
>> @@ -1815,10 +2030,12 @@ void qmp_transaction(TransactionActionList
>> *dev_list, Error **errp)
>>   {
>>       TransactionActionList *dev_entry = dev_list;
>>       BlkTransactionState *state, *next;
>> +    BlkTransactionList *btl;
>>       Error *local_err = NULL;
>>       QSIMPLEQ_HEAD(snap_bdrv_states, BlkTransactionState)
>> snap_bdrv_states;
>>       QSIMPLEQ_INIT(&snap_bdrv_states);
>> +    btl = new_blk_transaction_list();
>>       /* drain all i/o before any operations */
>>       bdrv_drain_all();
>> @@ -1837,8 +2054,10 @@ void qmp_transaction(TransactionActionList
>> *dev_list, Error **errp)
>>           assert(ops->instance_size > 0);
>>           state = g_malloc0(ops->instance_size);
>> +        state->refcount = 1;
>>           state->ops = ops;
>>           state->action = dev_info;
>> +        state->list = btl;
>>           QSIMPLEQ_INSERT_TAIL(&snap_bdrv_states, state, entry);
>>           state->ops->prepare(state, &local_err);
>> @@ -1869,8 +2088,10 @@ exit:
>>           if (state->ops->clean) {
>>               state->ops->clean(state);
>>           }
>> -        g_free(state);
>> +        blk_put_transaction_state(state);
>>       }
>> +
>> +    put_blk_transaction_list(btl);
>>   }
>
> Sorry, as I said, I need more context on the objects and very much would
> like a separation between truly opaque pointers and not-so-opaque
> pointers, before I can really understand what's going on (or I put more
> effort into it, but since it's always more probable to belong to the
> majority, I guess I won't be the only one getting confused).
>
> Maybe the next patches will clear it up, I don't know.
>
> Max

I'll put some more elbow grease into explaining the flow.

On 03/17/2015 12:04 PM, John Snow wrote:

>>> +typedef void (CallbackFn)(void *opaque, int ret);
>>> +
>>> +/* Temporary. Removed in the next patch. */
>>
>> Actually, no. :-)
>>
>> (remove in patch 7)
>>
>> Why are you making them non-static in the first place? I see both
>> functions mentioned in patch 3 and patch 7 only (except for context in
>> patch 6).
>>
> 
> Won't compile otherwise, because they have no users as of this patch. I
> am trying to keep the size of these patches down and in a sane order.

Another solution is to mark it static, but also add
__attribute__((unused)) to shut the compiler up, so that you don't cause
build failures, but also don't cause reviewers to wonder who is using
it.  Then when it finally gets used, a patch to remove the attribute is
easier to see than a patch adding static.

On 2015-03-17 at 14:04, John Snow wrote:
>
>
> On 03/17/2015 01:47 PM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 2015-03-04 at 23:15, John Snow wrote:
>>> The goal here is to add a new method to transactions that allows
>>> developers to specify a callback that will get invoked only once
>>> all jobs spawned by a transaction are completed, allowing developers
>>> the chance to perform actions conditionally pending complete success
>>> or complete failure.
>>>
>>> In order to register the new callback to be invoked, a user must 
>>> request
>>> a callback pointer and closure by calling new_transaction_wrapper, 
>>> which
>>> creates a wrapper around a closure and callback that would originally
>>> have
>>> been passed to e.g. backup_start().
>>>
>>> The function will return a function pointer and a new closure to be
>>> passed
>>> instead. The transaction system will effectively intercept these
>>> callbacks
>>> and execute the desired actions upon reception of all intercepted
>>> callbacks.
>>>
>>> This means that the registered callbacks will be called after all other
>>> transaction actions that requested a callback have completed. The 
>>> feature
>>> has no knowledge of jobs spawned without informing the
>>> BlkTransactionList.
>>>
>>> For an example of how to use the feature, please skip ahead to:
>>> 'block: drive_backup transaction callback support' which serves as an
>>> example
>>> for how to hook in drive_backup (or any block job launched by
>>> transactions).
>>>
>>>
>>> Note 1: Defining a callback method alone is not sufficient to have the
>>> new
>>>          method invoked. You must call new_transaction_wrapper AND
>>> ensure the
>>>          callback it returns to you is used as the callback for the 
>>> job.
>>>
>>> Note 2: You can use this feature for any system that registers
>>> completions of
>>>          an action via a callback of the form (void *opaque, int ret),
>>> not just
>>>          block job callbacks.
>>>
>>> Note 3: new_blk_transaction has no users in this patch, but will in
>>>          the next patch where it will become static and local to
>>> blockdev.c.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>   blockdev.c | 225
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>   1 file changed, 223 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/blockdev.c b/blockdev.c
>>> index 5120af1..3153ee7 100644
>>> --- a/blockdev.c
>>> +++ b/blockdev.c
>>> @@ -1207,6 +1207,8 @@ static BdrvDirtyBitmap
>>> *block_dirty_bitmap_lookup(const char *node,
>>>   /* New and old BlockDriverState structs for atomic group 
>>> operations */
>>>   typedef struct BlkTransactionState BlkTransactionState;
>>> +typedef struct BlkTransactionList BlkTransactionList;
>>> +typedef struct BlkTransactionData BlkTransactionData;
>>>   /* Only prepare() may fail. In a single transaction, only one of
>>> commit() or
>>>      abort() will be called, clean() will always be called if it
>>> present. */
>>> @@ -1221,6 +1223,8 @@ typedef struct BdrvActionOps {
>>>       void (*abort)(BlkTransactionState *common);
>>>       /* Clean up resource in the end, can be NULL. */
>>>       void (*clean)(BlkTransactionState *common);
>>> +    /* Execute this after +all+ jobs in the transaction finish */
>>> +    void (*cb)(BlkTransactionState *common);
>>>   } BdrvActionOps;
>>>   /*
>>> @@ -1231,9 +1235,220 @@ typedef struct BdrvActionOps {
>>>   struct BlkTransactionState {
>>>       TransactionAction *action;
>>>       const BdrvActionOps *ops;
>>> +    BlkTransactionList *list;
>>> +    void *opaque;
>>> +    /* Allow external users (callbacks) to reference this obj past
>>> .clean() */
>>> +    int refcount;
>>> +    /* All transactions in the current group */
>>>       QSIMPLEQ_ENTRY(BlkTransactionState) entry;
>>> +    /* Transactions in the current group with callbacks */
>>> +    QSIMPLEQ_ENTRY(BlkTransactionState) list_entry;
>>
>> "list_entry" seems very generic and it's hard for me to see a
>> fundamental difference to just "entry". How about "cb_entry", or
>> "cb_list_entry", or "cb_group_entry" or something like that?
>>
>>>   };
>>> +struct BlkTransactionList {
>>> +    int jobs;     /* Effectively: A refcount */
>>
>> Good to know, but I'd like the reason why it's called like this to be
>> here anyway ("Number of jobs remaining" or I don't know).
>>
>
> Yes, it's basically a refcount where the references are held by jobs.
>
>>> +    int status;   /* Cumulative retcode */
>>
>> The only places I currently find "retcode" in are linux-user/signal.c
>> and tests/image-fuzzer/runner.py. How about the more common "return
>> value" (or simply "cumulative status")?
>>
>> ("retcode" reads a bit like "retcon" to me, that's why I had to think
>> about it for a second)
>>
>
> Sure.
>
>>> +    QSIMPLEQ_HEAD(actions, BlkTransactionState) actions;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +typedef struct BlkTransactionData {
>>> +    void *opaque; /* Data given to encapsulated callback */
>>> +    int ret;      /* Return code given to encapsulated callback */
>>> +} BlkTransactionData;
>>> +
>>> +typedef struct BlkTransactionWrapper {
>>> +    void *opaque; /* Data to be given to encapsulated callback */
>>> +    void (*callback)(void *opaque, int ret); /* Encapsulated 
>>> callback */
>>> +} BlkTransactionWrapper;
>>
>> I find it pretty difficult to figure out what these objects are each
>> for. Care to add comments for that, too?
>>
>
> Will do.
>
>>> +
>>> +static BlkTransactionList *new_blk_transaction_list(void)
>>> +{
>>> +    BlkTransactionList *btl = g_malloc0(sizeof(*btl));
>>
>> Maybe use g_new0(BlkTransactionList, 1); (It's typesafe! And who doesn't
>> love typesafety?).
>>
>> (Optional, though, the foo = malloc(sizeof(*foo)) pattern is pretty
>> wide-spread, and as far as I remember, Markus purposely did not replace
>> it by foo = g_new(Foo, 1))
>>
>>> +
>>> +    /* Implicit 'job' for qmp_transaction itself */
>>> +    btl->jobs = 1;
>>
>> Well, if it is a refcount, just call it that way...
>>
>> (Update: Okay, I see why you didn't call it that way. Maybe the comment
>> needs improvement, like "The transaction itself is a job, too, that
>> needs to be completed before the callbacks are called")
>>
>
> That's exactly the trick in play, here.
>
>>> + QSIMPLEQ_INIT(&btl->actions);
>>> +    return btl;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static BlkTransactionState
>>> *blk_put_transaction_state(BlkTransactionState *bts)
>>> +{
>>> +    bts->refcount--;
>>> +    if (bts->refcount == 0) {
>>> +        g_free(bts);
>>
>> How about removing it from the lists it's in? Doesn't appear to be
>> necessary, but I'd find it cleaner.
>>
>>> +        return NULL;
>>> +    }
>>> +    return bts;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void del_blk_transaction_list(BlkTransactionList *btl)
>>> +{
>>> +    BlkTransactionState *bts, *bts_next;
>>> +
>>> +    /* The list should in normal cases be empty,
>>> +     * but in case someone really just wants to kibosh the whole
>>> deal: */
>>
>> Thank you for teaching me a new word.
>>
>>> +    QSIMPLEQ_FOREACH_SAFE(bts, &btl->actions, list_entry, bts_next) {
>>> +        g_free(bts->opaque);
>>
>> Urp... Are you sure? :-/
>>
>> I'd rather have some callback for destroying the object... Apparently
>> this will (for now) be always useless overhead, because that callback is
>> only calling g_free(), but it's an opaque pointer, so it's not really up
>> to you to do anything with it other than passing it around.
>>
>>> +        blk_put_transaction_state(bts);
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +    g_free(btl);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void blk_run_transaction_callbacks(BlkTransactionList *btl)
>>> +{
>>> +    BlkTransactionState *bts, *bts_next;
>>> +
>>> +    QSIMPLEQ_FOREACH_SAFE(bts, &btl->actions, list_entry, bts_next) {
>>> +        if (bts->ops->cb) {
>>> +            bts->ops->cb(bts);
>>> +        }
>>> +
>>> +        /* Free the BlkTransactionData */
>>> +        g_free(bts->opaque);
>>
>> Again... Urp. If you know it's a BlkTransactionData object, please make
>> it a BlkTransactionData pointer and don't call it "opaque" if it's not
>> so opaque in the end.
>>
>
> A good point. I use this "opaque" pointer to actually hold two very 
> specific and knowable things; it's just that those things change 
> during the lifetime of the object.
>
> For whatever reason, I decided it was nicer to not have two pointers 
> that are never used simultaneously.
>
> I can either make two dedicated fields, or just introduce it as an 
> union. The state of the object otherwise dictates which union field to 
> access.
>
> Because I am a complicated individual, I am thinking fondly of the 
> union right now.

Good. I like unions. Other people don't. But I do. Especially anonymous 
unions, but I guess we don't have the luxury of C11 in qemu...

>
>>> +        bts->opaque = NULL;
>>> +        blk_put_transaction_state(bts);
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +    QSIMPLEQ_INIT(&btl->actions);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static BlkTransactionList
>>> *put_blk_transaction_list(BlkTransactionList *btl)
>>> +{
>>> +    btl->jobs--;
>>> +    if (btl->jobs == 0) {
>>
>> Okay, this is interesting, because on the one hand it makes it clear why
>> you did not call it "refcount", while on the other hand this is clearly
>> a pattern which looks very much like handling a refcount.
>>
>> Maybe you could call the function differently, like
>> "blk_transaction_list_job_completed()" or something. It's longer, but I
>> think it reduces the change of people staring at this thinking "Why is
>> 'jobs' actually a refcount?".
>>
>
> OK, I'm up for suggestions on naming. I didn't really (deep in my 
> heart) expect v1 to be perfect.

I know that feeling... And it's completely fine. That's what the 
reviewing process is for.

> I think your main problem here is "jobs" as an integral refcount. 
> Maybe "num_jobs" or "jobs_remaining" etc would make it clearer.

My main problem is that the function is named exactly like a function 
that decreases a refcount and the content of the function is exactly 
like a function that decreases a refcount, but the refcount isn't called 
'refcount', but 'jobs'.

Therefore, if you're trying to tie the refcount to a non-abstract 
concept (the number of jobs left to complete) by representing it as 
such, I'd like the function to represent that concept to (a job has been 
completed).

> And then, sure, "blk_transaction_list_job_completed" would be a fine 
> alternative to "put."
>
>>> + blk_run_transaction_callbacks(btl);
>>> +        del_blk_transaction_list(btl);
>>> +        return NULL;
>>> +    }
>>> +    return btl;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void blk_transaction_complete(BlkTransactionState *common)
>>> +{
>>> +    BlkTransactionList *btl = common->list;
>>> +
>>> +    /* Add this action into the pile to be completed */
>>> +    QSIMPLEQ_INSERT_TAIL(&btl->actions, common, list_entry);
>>> +
>>> +    /* Inform the list that we have a completion;
>>> +     * possibly run all the pending actions. */
>>> +    put_blk_transaction_list(btl);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +/**
>>> + * Intercept a callback that was issued due to a transactional action.
>>> + */
>>> +static void transaction_callback(void *opaque, int ret)
>>> +{
>>> +    BlkTransactionState *common = opaque;
>>> +    BlkTransactionWrapper *btw = common->opaque;
>>> +
>>> +    /* Prepare data for ops->cb() */
>>> +    BlkTransactionData *btd = g_malloc0(sizeof(*btd));
>>
>> g_new0(BlkTransactionData, 1);
>>
>>> +    btd->opaque = btw->opaque;
>>> +    btd->ret = ret;
>>> +
>>> +    /* Transaction state now tracks OUR data */
>>> +    common->opaque = btd;
>>
>> Sorry, but I really have a hard time following this opaqueness... Again,
>> if you can, please clarify what the objects are for, and it would be
>> very nice to separate truly opaque objects from these internally used
>> objects (which are managed by you and thus are to be managed by you
>> (g_free()), because reusing void * pointers for different kinds of
>> objects like this makes my brain go strawberry.
>>
>
> I'll shoot for Raspberry in v2.

Please don't try to add whipped cream on top.

>>> +
>>> +    /* Keep track of the amalgamated return code */
>>> +    common->list->status |= ret;
>>
>> Hm, I guess you're expecting ret to be -errno. In that case, you'd
>> probably rather want "if (ret && (!common->list->status ||
>> common->list->status == -ENOSPC)) { common->list->status = ret; }" or
>> something like that, because bit-OR-ing different -errno values will
>> probably not turn out so great.
>>
>
> I am only super interested in keeping a zero-or-nonzero cumulative 
> status -- the actual error code winds up not being so important.

Maybe, but most places in qemu try to follow the -errno convention. I'd 
only deviate from it if there is a compelling reason to. If you want to 
keep it short, just make it "if (ret) { common->list->status = ret; }".

As long as you don't intend to use bitmasks for the return values, this 
will give you at least the same amount of information: Some error 
occurred. Also, it'll even tell you the kind of at least on error that 
occurred (which may even be meaningful, if it's ENOSPC or something like 
that), so I don't think it's worse (other than requiring three lines 
instead of one).

> The mechanisms here allow the delivery of both the "cumulative" and 
> the individual return code to the transactional callback, so error 
> messages etc. can fill in the blanks if they need to.
>
>>> +
>>> +    /* Deliver the intercepted callback FIRST */
>>> +    btw->callback(btw->opaque, ret);
>>> +    blk_transaction_complete(common);
>>> +    g_free(btw);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +typedef void (CallbackFn)(void *opaque, int ret);
>>> +
>>> +/* Temporary. Removed in the next patch. */
>>
>> Actually, no. :-)
>>
>> (remove in patch 7)
>>
>> Why are you making them non-static in the first place? I see both
>> functions mentioned in patch 3 and patch 7 only (except for context in
>> patch 6).
>>
>
> Won't compile otherwise, because they have no users as of this patch. 
> I am trying to keep the size of these patches down and in a sane order.

Ah, hm, right...

> Once a user is added, we can re-add the static attribute.

Well, there's __attribute__((used)), but I see, yep.

(__attribute__((used)) would be cleaner because it doesn't litter the 
global namespace; on the other hand, if there are no conflict, in 
practice just not making it static is probably the better choice (I 
don't think any compiler that doesn't understand __attribute__((used)) 
will build qemu at all, but you never know what people try))

>>> +CallbackFn *new_transaction_wrapper(BlkTransactionState *common,
>>> +                                    void *opaque,
>>> +                                    void (*callback)(void *, int),
>>> +                                    void **new_opaque);
>>> +
>>> +void undo_transaction_wrapper(BlkTransactionState *common);
>>> +
>>> +/**
>>> + * Create a new transactional callback wrapper.
>>> + *
>>> + * Given a callback and a closure, generate a new
>>> + * callback and closure that will invoke the
>>> + * given callback with the given closure.
>>> + *
>>> + * After all wrappers in the transactional group have
>>> + * been processed, each action's .cb() method will be
>>> + * invoked.
>>> + *
>>> + * @common The transactional state to set a callback for.
>>> + * @opaque A closure intended for the encapsulated callback.
>>> + * @callback The callback we are encapsulating.
>>> + * @new_opaque The closure to be used instead of @opaque.
>>> + *
>>> + * @return The callback to be used instead of @callback.
>>> + */
>>> +CallbackFn *new_transaction_wrapper(BlkTransactionState *common,
>>> +                                           void *opaque,
>>> +                                           CallbackFn *callback,
>>> +                                           void **new_opaque)
>>> +{
>>> +    BlkTransactionWrapper *btw = g_malloc0(sizeof(*btw));
>>
>> g_new0(BlkTransactionWrapper, 1);
>>
>>> +    assert(new_opaque);
>>> +
>>> +    /* Stash the original callback information */
>>> +    btw->opaque = opaque;
>>> +    btw->callback = callback;
>>> +    common->opaque = btw;
>>> +
>>> +    /* The BTS will serve as our new closure */
>>> +    *new_opaque = common;
>>> +    common->refcount++;
>>> +
>>> +    /* Inform the transaction BTL to expect one more return */
>>> +    common->list->jobs++;
>>> +
>>> +    /* Lastly, the actual callback function to handle the
>>> interception. */
>>> +    return transaction_callback;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +/**
>>> + * Undo any actions performed by the above call.
>>> + */
>>> +void undo_transaction_wrapper(BlkTransactionState *common)
>>> +{
>>> +    BlkTransactionList *btl = common->list;
>>> +    BlkTransactionState *bts;
>>> +    BlkTransactionData *btd;
>>> +
>>> +    /* Stage 0: Wrapper was never created: */
>>> +    if (common->opaque == NULL && common->refcount == 1) {
>>> +        return;
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +    /* Stage 2: Job already completed or was canceled.
>>> +     * Force an error in the callback data and just invoke the
>>> completion
>>> +     * handler to perform appropriate cleanup for us.
>>> +     */
>>> +    QSIMPLEQ_FOREACH(bts, &btl->actions, list_entry) {
>>> +        if (bts == common) {
>>> +            btd = common->opaque;
>>> +            /* Force error for callback */
>>> +            btd->ret = -1;
>>
>> No -errno?
>>
>
> Hmm. I suppose I should emulate one. What errno should I emulate for 
> "One of your siblings died, and now you also need to take a dirtnap?"

That's always a hard question, isn't it? :-)

I'd really like an error code like "EEVERYTHINGWENTWRONG" or 
"EGOSHIDONTKNOW". I'm always consulting errno(3) at this point... ... 
Well, there's ECANCELED, maybe that's okay.

>
>>> + common->ops->cb(common);
>>> +            QSIMPLEQ_REMOVE(&btl->actions, common,
>>> +                            BlkTransactionState, list_entry);
>>> +            goto cleanup;
>>> +        }
>>> +    }
>>> +    /* Stage 1: Callback created, but job never launched */
>>> +    put_blk_transaction_list(common->list);
>>> + cleanup:
>>> +    g_free(common->opaque);
>>
>> urp
>>
>
> ok, ok! I'm sorry! ... kind of ...
>
>>> +    blk_put_transaction_state(common);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>   /* internal snapshot private data */
>>>   typedef struct InternalSnapshotState {
>>>       BlkTransactionState common;
>>> @@ -1775,7 +1990,7 @@ static const BdrvActionOps actions[] = {
>>>           .instance_size = sizeof(DriveBackupState),
>>>           .prepare = drive_backup_prepare,
>>>           .abort = drive_backup_abort,
>>> -        .clean = drive_backup_clean,
>>> +        .clean = drive_backup_clean
>>
>> Probably not intended, I guess.
>>
>
> Did an earlier patch of mine goof this up? The way this patch leaves 
> it looks correct.

Both are correct. However, generally qemu likes to keep commas at the 
end of initializers because it makes it easier to add new fields later on.

>
>>>       },
>>>       [TRANSACTION_ACTION_KIND_BLOCKDEV_BACKUP] = {
>>>           .instance_size = sizeof(BlockdevBackupState),
>>> @@ -1815,10 +2030,12 @@ void qmp_transaction(TransactionActionList
>>> *dev_list, Error **errp)
>>>   {
>>>       TransactionActionList *dev_entry = dev_list;
>>>       BlkTransactionState *state, *next;
>>> +    BlkTransactionList *btl;
>>>       Error *local_err = NULL;
>>>       QSIMPLEQ_HEAD(snap_bdrv_states, BlkTransactionState)
>>> snap_bdrv_states;
>>>       QSIMPLEQ_INIT(&snap_bdrv_states);
>>> +    btl = new_blk_transaction_list();
>>>       /* drain all i/o before any operations */
>>>       bdrv_drain_all();
>>> @@ -1837,8 +2054,10 @@ void qmp_transaction(TransactionActionList
>>> *dev_list, Error **errp)
>>>           assert(ops->instance_size > 0);
>>>           state = g_malloc0(ops->instance_size);
>>> +        state->refcount = 1;
>>>           state->ops = ops;
>>>           state->action = dev_info;
>>> +        state->list = btl;
>>>           QSIMPLEQ_INSERT_TAIL(&snap_bdrv_states, state, entry);
>>>           state->ops->prepare(state, &local_err);
>>> @@ -1869,8 +2088,10 @@ exit:
>>>           if (state->ops->clean) {
>>>               state->ops->clean(state);
>>>           }
>>> -        g_free(state);
>>> +        blk_put_transaction_state(state);
>>>       }
>>> +
>>> +    put_blk_transaction_list(btl);
>>>   }
>>
>> Sorry, as I said, I need more context on the objects and very much would
>> like a separation between truly opaque pointers and not-so-opaque
>> pointers, before I can really understand what's going on (or I put more
>> effort into it, but since it's always more probable to belong to the
>> majority, I guess I won't be the only one getting confused).
>>
>> Maybe the next patches will clear it up, I don't know.
>>
>> Max
>
> I'll put some more elbow grease into explaining the flow.

Thanks!

Max

On 03/17/2015 02:18 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 03/17/2015 12:04 PM, John Snow wrote:
>
>>>> +typedef void (CallbackFn)(void *opaque, int ret);
>>>> +
>>>> +/* Temporary. Removed in the next patch. */
>>>
>>> Actually, no. :-)
>>>
>>> (remove in patch 7)
>>>
>>> Why are you making them non-static in the first place? I see both
>>> functions mentioned in patch 3 and patch 7 only (except for context in
>>> patch 6).
>>>
>>
>> Won't compile otherwise, because they have no users as of this patch. I
>> am trying to keep the size of these patches down and in a sane order.
>
> Another solution is to mark it static, but also add
> __attribute__((unused)) to shut the compiler up, so that you don't cause
> build failures, but also don't cause reviewers to wonder who is using
> it.  Then when it finally gets used, a patch to remove the attribute is
> easier to see than a patch adding static.
>

Good trick, thanks.