On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 12:18:03PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 05/09/17 09:28, Vincent Legout wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Sorry for such a long delay. I'm still interested in having this patch
> > merged.
> >
> > I've tried to make the patch more generic and move it to xenbus as
> > discussed
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 12:18:03PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 05/09/17 09:28, Vincent Legout wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Sorry for such a long delay. I'm still interested in having this patch
> > merged.
> >
> > I've tried to make the patch more generic and move it to xenbus as
> > discussed
On 05/09/17 09:28, Vincent Legout wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Sorry for such a long delay. I'm still interested in having this patch
> merged.
>
> I've tried to make the patch more generic and move it to xenbus as
> discussed during the Xen summit, but I'm not sure how or if it's
> possible. Would doing
On 05/09/17 09:28, Vincent Legout wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Sorry for such a long delay. I'm still interested in having this patch
> merged.
>
> I've tried to make the patch more generic and move it to xenbus as
> discussed during the Xen summit, but I'm not sure how or if it's
> possible. Would doing
Hello,
Sorry for such a long delay. I'm still interested in having this patch
merged.
I've tried to make the patch more generic and move it to xenbus as
discussed during the Xen summit, but I'm not sure how or if it's
possible. Would doing something in xenbus_otherend_changed() make sense?
But
Hello,
Sorry for such a long delay. I'm still interested in having this patch
merged.
I've tried to make the patch more generic and move it to xenbus as
discussed during the Xen summit, but I'm not sure how or if it's
possible. Would doing something in xenbus_otherend_changed() make sense?
But
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 03:30:00PM +0200, Vincent Legout wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 06:53:25AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote :
> > >>> On 05.07.17 at 14:37, wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 02:17:24AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote :
> > >> >>> On 05.07.17 at 10:08,
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 03:30:00PM +0200, Vincent Legout wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 06:53:25AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote :
> > >>> On 05.07.17 at 14:37, wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 02:17:24AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote :
> > >> >>> On 05.07.17 at 10:08, wrote:
> > >> > Without the
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 06:53:25AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote :
> >>> On 05.07.17 at 14:37, wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 02:17:24AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote :
> >> >>> On 05.07.17 at 10:08, wrote:
> >> > Without the patch, blkif_release and
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 06:53:25AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote :
> >>> On 05.07.17 at 14:37, wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 02:17:24AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote :
> >> >>> On 05.07.17 at 10:08, wrote:
> >> > Without the patch, blkif_release and xlvbd_release_gendisk are never
> >> > called, and
>>> On 05.07.17 at 14:37, wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 02:17:24AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote :
>> >>> On 05.07.17 at 10:08, wrote:
>> > Without the patch, blkif_release and xlvbd_release_gendisk are never
>> > called, and no call to
>>> On 05.07.17 at 14:37, wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 02:17:24AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote :
>> >>> On 05.07.17 at 10:08, wrote:
>> > Without the patch, blkif_release and xlvbd_release_gendisk are never
>> > called, and no call to blk_unregister_queue is made.
>>
>> But isn't that what
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 02:17:24AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote :
> >>> On 05.07.17 at 10:08, wrote:
> > Without the patch, blkif_release and xlvbd_release_gendisk are never
> > called, and no call to blk_unregister_queue is made.
>
> But isn't that what needs to be fixed
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 02:17:24AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote :
> >>> On 05.07.17 at 10:08, wrote:
> > Without the patch, blkif_release and xlvbd_release_gendisk are never
> > called, and no call to blk_unregister_queue is made.
>
> But isn't that what needs to be fixed then? The device should be
>>> On 05.07.17 at 10:08, wrote:
> Without the patch, blkif_release and xlvbd_release_gendisk are never
> called, and no call to blk_unregister_queue is made.
But isn't that what needs to be fixed then? The device should be
removed once its last user goes away (which
>>> On 05.07.17 at 10:08, wrote:
> Without the patch, blkif_release and xlvbd_release_gendisk are never
> called, and no call to blk_unregister_queue is made.
But isn't that what needs to be fixed then? The device should be
removed once its last user goes away (which would be at the time
the
16 matches
Mail list logo