Re: [PATCH v10 09/21] jobs: use job locks also in the unit tests

[Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy]

On 7/25/22 10:38, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
> Add missing job synchronization in the unit tests, with
> explicit locks.
>
> We are deliberately using _locked functions wrapped by a guard
> instead of a normal call because the normal call will be removed
> in future, as the only usage is limited to the tests.
>
> In other words, if a function like job_pause() is/will be only used
> in tests to avoid:
>
> WITH_JOB_LOCK_GUARD(){
>      job_pause_locked();
> }
>
> then it is not worth keeping job_pause(), and just use the guard.
>
> 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: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>

actually, patch is modified enough to drop r-b.

> ---
>   tests/unit/test-bdrv-drain.c     |  76 +++++++++++++-------
>   tests/unit/test-block-iothread.c |   8 ++-
>   tests/unit/test-blockjob-txn.c   |  24 ++++---
>   tests/unit/test-blockjob.c       | 116 +++++++++++++++++++------------
>   4 files changed, 141 insertions(+), 83 deletions(-)

[..]

> @@ -459,36 +477,44 @@ static void test_complete_in_standby(void)
>       bjob = mk_job(blk, "job", &test_yielding_driver, true,
>                     JOB_MANUAL_FINALIZE | JOB_MANUAL_DISMISS);
>       job = &bjob->job;
> -    assert(job->status == JOB_STATUS_CREATED);
> +    /* Job did not start, so status is safe to read*/

comment is not needed now, let's drop it.

Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>


--
Best regards,
Vladimir