On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 01/02/17 21:20, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On 1 February 2017 at 19:37, Stefano Stabellini
> > wrote:
> >> Hi Peter,
> >>
> >> do you think this is acceptable?
> >
> > The set of operations here is basically what I suggested
>
On 01/02/17 21:20, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 1 February 2017 at 19:37, Stefano Stabellini
> wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> do you think this is acceptable?
>
> The set of operations here is basically what I suggested
> in review of v1, so I think it is the right thing.
> OTOH
On 1 February 2017 at 19:37, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> do you think this is acceptable?
The set of operations here is basically what I suggested
in review of v1, so I think it is the right thing.
OTOH this is a bit of an odd corner of the QOM model
so it
Hi Peter,
do you think this is acceptable?
Thanks,
Stefano
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
> The error exits of xen_pv_find_xendev() free the new xen-device via
> g_free() which is wrong.
>
> As the xen-device has been initialized as qdev it must be removed
> via qdev_unplug().
>
>
The error exits of xen_pv_find_xendev() free the new xen-device via
g_free() which is wrong.
As the xen-device has been initialized as qdev it must be removed
via qdev_unplug().
This bug has been introduced with commit 3a6c9172ac5951e6dac2b3f6
("xen: create qdev for each backend device").