Simple movement without any change. It's needed for the following
patch, as this function will need to use some staff which is currently
below it.

Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
---
 block/block-copy.c | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/block-copy.c b/block/block-copy.c
index dd406eb4bb..910947cb43 100644
--- a/block/block-copy.c
+++ b/block/block-copy.c
@@ -106,39 +106,6 @@ static bool coroutine_fn block_copy_wait_one(BlockCopyState *s, int64_t offset,
     return true;
 }
 
-static BlockCopyTask *block_copy_task_create(BlockCopyState *s,
-                                             int64_t offset, int64_t bytes)
-{
-    int64_t next_zero;
-    BlockCopyTask *task = g_new(BlockCopyTask, 1);
-
-    assert(bdrv_dirty_bitmap_get(s->copy_bitmap, offset));
-
-    bytes = MIN(bytes, s->copy_size);
-    next_zero = bdrv_dirty_bitmap_next_zero(s->copy_bitmap, offset, bytes);
-    if (next_zero >= 0) {
-        assert(next_zero > offset); /* offset is dirty */
-        assert(next_zero < offset + bytes); /* no need to do MIN() */
-        bytes = next_zero - offset;
-    }
-
-    /* region is dirty, so no existent tasks possible in it */
-    assert(!find_conflicting_task(s, offset, bytes));
-
-    bdrv_reset_dirty_bitmap(s->copy_bitmap, offset, bytes);
-    s->in_flight_bytes += bytes;
-
-    *task = (BlockCopyTask) {
-        .s = s,
-        .offset = offset,
-        .bytes = bytes,
-    };
-    qemu_co_queue_init(&task->wait_queue);
-    QLIST_INSERT_HEAD(&s->tasks, task, list);
-
-    return task;
-}
-
 /*
  * block_copy_task_shrink
  *
@@ -361,6 +328,39 @@ out:
     return ret;
 }
 
+static BlockCopyTask *block_copy_task_create(BlockCopyState *s,
+                                             int64_t offset, int64_t bytes)
+{
+    int64_t next_zero;
+    BlockCopyTask *task = g_new(BlockCopyTask, 1);
+
+    assert(bdrv_dirty_bitmap_get(s->copy_bitmap, offset));
+
+    bytes = MIN(bytes, s->copy_size);
+    next_zero = bdrv_dirty_bitmap_next_zero(s->copy_bitmap, offset, bytes);
+    if (next_zero >= 0) {
+        assert(next_zero > offset); /* offset is dirty */
+        assert(next_zero < offset + bytes); /* no need to do MIN() */
+        bytes = next_zero - offset;
+    }
+
+    /* region is dirty, so no existent tasks possible in it */
+    assert(!find_conflicting_task(s, offset, bytes));
+
+    bdrv_reset_dirty_bitmap(s->copy_bitmap, offset, bytes);
+    s->in_flight_bytes += bytes;
+
+    *task = (BlockCopyTask) {
+        .s = s,
+        .offset = offset,
+        .bytes = bytes,
+    };
+    qemu_co_queue_init(&task->wait_queue);
+    QLIST_INSERT_HEAD(&s->tasks, task, list);
+
+    return task;
+}
+
 static int block_copy_block_status(BlockCopyState *s, int64_t offset,
                                    int64_t bytes, int64_t *pnum)
 {
-- 
2.21.0

On 25.03.20 14:46, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> Simple movement without any change. It's needed for the following
> patch, as this function will need to use some staff which is currently

*stuff

> below it.

Wouldn’t it be simpler to just declare block_copy_task_entry()?

Max

> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
> ---
>  block/block-copy.c | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)

28.04.2020 12:06, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 25.03.20 14:46, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> Simple movement without any change. It's needed for the following
>> patch, as this function will need to use some staff which is currently
> 
> *stuff
> 
>> below it.
> 
> Wouldn’t it be simpler to just declare block_copy_task_entry()?
> 

I just think, that it's good to keep native order of functions and avoid extra declarations. Still, may be I care too much. No actual difference, if you prefer declaration, I can drop this patch.

> 
>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
>> ---
>>   block/block-copy.c | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>>   1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> 


-- 
Best regards,
Vladimir

On 28.04.20 11:17, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> 28.04.2020 12:06, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 25.03.20 14:46, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>>> Simple movement without any change. It's needed for the following
>>> patch, as this function will need to use some staff which is currently
>>
>> *stuff
>>
>>> below it.
>>
>> Wouldn’t it be simpler to just declare block_copy_task_entry()?
>>
> 
> I just think, that it's good to keep native order of functions and avoid
> extra declarations. Still, may be I care too much. No actual difference,
> if you prefer declaration, I can drop this patch.

Personally, the native order doesn’t do me any good (cscope doesn’t
really care where the definition is), and also having functions in order
seems just like a C artifact.

I just prefer declarations because otherwise we end up moving functions
all the time with no real benefit.  Furthermore, moving functions has
the drawback of polluting git blame.

Max