On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 11:35:50 +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 3/12/19 7:57 PM, Peter Krempa wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 16:41:15 +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 16:13:20 +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
[...]
> > > Additionally it would be better if qemuMonito
On 3/12/19 7:57 PM, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 16:41:15 +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 16:13:20 +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623389
If a device is detached twice from the same domain the following
race conditio
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 16:41:15 +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 16:13:20 +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623389
> >
> > If a device is detached twice from the same domain the following
> > race condition may happen:
> >
> > 1)
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 16:13:20 +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623389
>
> If a device is detached twice from the same domain the following
> race condition may happen:
>
> 1) The first DetachDevice() call will issue "device_del" on qemu
> monitor, b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623389
If a device is detached twice from the same domain the following
race condition may happen:
1) The first DetachDevice() call will issue "device_del" on qemu
monitor, but since the DEVICE_DELETED event did not arrive in
time, the API ends claimin
