On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 02:43:42PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
>
> Here is the correct patch then: remove any special case cleanup for the
> destroy functions.
I've applied this to CVS
Dan.
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, Boston -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 05:17:07PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
>> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 04:21:55PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
Cole Robinson wrote:
> The patch below fixes an issue in the python bindings with the
> vir*Destroy
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 01:20:17PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 12:58:15PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:51:43AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 09:25:55PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > > The doc
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 12:58:15PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:51:43AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 09:25:55PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > The docs are wrong. Destory merely hard-kills the object being managed.
> > > It do
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:51:43AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 09:25:55PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > The docs are wrong. Destory merely hard-kills the object being managed.
> > It does not free memory associated with the object.
>
> No, the documentation sa
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 09:25:55PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> The docs are wrong. Destory merely hard-kills the object being managed.
> It does not free memory associated with the object.
No, the documentation says it frees the objects (and has done
forever), so it should free them. I hav
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 05:17:07PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 04:21:55PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
> >> Cole Robinson wrote:
> >>> The patch below fixes an issue in the python bindings with the
> >>> vir*Destroy methods. After the object is
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 04:21:55PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
>> Cole Robinson wrote:
>>> The patch below fixes an issue in the python bindings with the
>>> vir*Destroy methods. After the object is successfully destroyed,
>>> the payload is cleared, using 'self._o = Non
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 04:31:36PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 04:21:55PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
> >> Cole Robinson wrote:
> >>> The patch below fixes an issue in the python bindings with the
> >>> vir*Destroy methods. After the object is
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 04:21:55PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
>> Cole Robinson wrote:
>>> The patch below fixes an issue in the python bindings with the
>>> vir*Destroy methods. After the object is successfully destroyed,
>>> the payload is cleared, using 'self._o = Non
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 04:21:55PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
> Cole Robinson wrote:
> > The patch below fixes an issue in the python bindings with the
> > vir*Destroy methods. After the object is successfully destroyed,
> > the payload is cleared, using 'self._o = None'. This unfortunately
> > sc
Cole Robinson wrote:
> The patch below fixes an issue in the python bindings with the
> vir*Destroy methods. After the object is successfully destroyed,
> the payload is cleared, using 'self._o = None'. This unfortunately
> screws up virt object reference counts, as the payload should be
> free'd
The patch below fixes an issue in the python bindings with the
vir*Destroy methods. After the object is successfully destroyed,
the payload is cleared, using 'self._o = None'. This unfortunately
screws up virt object reference counts, as the payload should be
free'd using the appropriate vir*Free
13 matches
Mail list logo
