On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 15:31:48 +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 3/14/19 3:14 PM, Peter Krempa wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 14:56:48 +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> > > On 3/14/19 2:18 PM, Peter Krempa wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 13:22:38 +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> >
>
On 3/14/19 3:14 PM, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 14:56:48 +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 3/14/19 2:18 PM, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 13:22:38 +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
[...]
How can this be considered success? Also this introduces a possible
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 14:56:48 +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 3/14/19 2:18 PM, Peter Krempa wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 13:22:38 +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
[...]
> >
> > How can this be considered success? Also this introduces a possible
> > regression. The DEVICE_DELETED
On 3/14/19 2:18 PM, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 13:22:38 +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
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 13:22:38 +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,
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
