Re: [RFC PATCH v2 03/25] block/block-backend.c: assertions for block-backend

[Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito]

On 05/10/2021 18:29, Eric Blake wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 10:31:53AM -0400, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
> > All the global state (GS) API functions will check that
> > qemu_in_main_thread() returns true. If not, it means
> > that the safety of BQL cannot be guaranteed, and
> > they need to be moved to I/O.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >   block/block-backend.c  | 89 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >   softmmu/qdev-monitor.c |  2 +
> >   2 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/block/block-backend.c b/block/block-backend.c
> > index d31ae16b99..9cd3b27b53 100644
> > --- a/block/block-backend.c
> > +++ b/block/block-backend.c
> > @@ -227,6 +227,7 @@ static void blk_root_activate(BdrvChild *child, Error 
> > **errp)
> >   
> >   void blk_set_force_allow_inactivate(BlockBackend *blk)
> >   {
> > +    g_assert(qemu_in_main_thread());
>
> Why g_assert()?
>
> > @@ -661,6 +676,7 @@ bool monitor_add_blk(BlockBackend *blk, const char *name, 
> > Error **errp)
> >   {
> >       assert(!blk->name);
> >       assert(name && name[0]);
> > +    g_assert(qemu_in_main_thread());
>
> especially why mixed spellings?
>
> Per osdep.h, we don't support builds with NDEBUG or G_DISABLE_ASSERT
> defined to their non-default values, so behavior isn't really
> different, but consistency says we use 'assert' more frequently than
> 'g_assert'.

You are right, I did not put that much attention to this.
Will change it in assert().

Thank you,
Emanuele