On 04/09/2013 07:13 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 04/09/2013 03:08 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>
>>> I'm trying to understand what the behavior was before this patch went in.
>>
>> Well this was just fixing a deadlock introduced in a previous patch.
>> You need to look further back than just this p
On 04/09/2013 03:08 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to understand what the behavior was before this patch went in.
>
> Well this was just fixing a deadlock introduced in a previous patch.
> You need to look further back than just this patch. Originally the
> global QEMU driver lock
On 04/09/13 13:22, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:19:05PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
On 04/09/13 12:26, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 10:08:31AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 09:15:28PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
On 02/11/2013
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:19:05PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
> On 04/09/13 12:26, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 10:08:31AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >>On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 09:15:28PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> >>>On 02/11/2013 09:46 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On 04/09/13 12:26, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 10:08:31AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 09:15:28PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
On 02/11/2013 09:46 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
From: "Daniel P. Berrange"
When removing a VM from the virDomainObjLi
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 12:22:38PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
> On 04/09/13 11:08, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 09:15:28PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> >>On 02/11/2013 09:46 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >>>From: "Daniel P. Berrange"
> >>>
> >>>When removing a VM from the v
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 10:08:31AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 09:15:28PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> > On 02/11/2013 09:46 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > From: "Daniel P. Berrange"
> > >
> > > When removing a VM from the virDomainObjListPtr, we must not
> > > b
On 04/09/13 11:08, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 09:15:28PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
On 02/11/2013 09:46 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
From: "Daniel P. Berrange"
When removing a VM from the virDomainObjListPtr, we must not
be holding the VM lock while acquiring the list lo
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 09:15:28PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 02/11/2013 09:46 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > From: "Daniel P. Berrange"
> >
> > When removing a VM from the virDomainObjListPtr, we must not
> > be holding the VM lock while acquiring the list lock. Re-order
> > code to ensure
On 02/11/2013 09:46 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> From: "Daniel P. Berrange"
>
> When removing a VM from the virDomainObjListPtr, we must not
> be holding the VM lock while acquiring the list lock. Re-order
> code to ensure that we can release the VM lock early.
> ---
> src/conf/domain_conf.c
On 2013年02月12日 00:46, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
From: "Daniel P. Berrange"
When removing a VM from the virDomainObjListPtr, we must not
be holding the VM lock while acquiring the list lock. Re-order
code to ensure that we can release the VM lock early.
---
src/conf/domain_conf.c | 3 +--
1 fi
From: "Daniel P. Berrange"
When removing a VM from the virDomainObjListPtr, we must not
be holding the VM lock while acquiring the list lock. Re-order
code to ensure that we can release the VM lock early.
---
src/conf/domain_conf.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --
12 matches
Mail list logo