On 09/27/2018 01:16 PM, Bjoern Walk wrote:
> Michal Privoznik [2018-09-27, 12:07PM +0200]:
>> On 09/27/2018 11:11 AM, Bjoern Walk wrote:
>>> I still don't understand why we need a timeout at all. If virtlockd is
>>> unable to get the lock, just bail and continue with what you did after
>>> the tim
Michal Privoznik [2018-09-27, 12:07PM +0200]:
> On 09/27/2018 11:11 AM, Bjoern Walk wrote:
> > I still don't understand why we need a timeout at all. If virtlockd is
> > unable to get the lock, just bail and continue with what you did after
> > the timeout runs out. Is this some kind of safety-mea
On 09/27/2018 11:11 AM, Bjoern Walk wrote:
> Michal Privoznik [2018-09-27, 10:15AM +0200]:
>> On 09/27/2018 09:01 AM, Bjoern Walk wrote:
>>> Michal Privoznik [2018-09-19, 11:45AM +0200]:
On 09/19/2018 11:17 AM, Bjoern Walk wrote:
> Bjoern Walk [2018-09-12, 01:17PM +0200]:
>> Michal
Michal Privoznik [2018-09-27, 10:15AM +0200]:
> On 09/27/2018 09:01 AM, Bjoern Walk wrote:
> > Michal Privoznik [2018-09-19, 11:45AM +0200]:
> >> On 09/19/2018 11:17 AM, Bjoern Walk wrote:
> >>> Bjoern Walk [2018-09-12, 01:17PM +0200]:
> Michal Privoznik [2018-09-12, 11:32AM
> +0200]:
Michal Privoznik [2018-09-27, 10:14AM +0200]:
> Right, so this is just waiting for virtlockd to lock the paths.
> virtlockd is obviously unable to do that (as I suggested in my previous
> e-mail - is perhaps some other process holding the lock?).
It can not lock the paths, because those paths are
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 10:15 AM +0200, Michal Privoznik
wrote:
> On 09/27/2018 09:01 AM, Bjoern Walk wrote:
>> Michal Privoznik [2018-09-19, 11:45AM +0200]:
>>> On 09/19/2018 11:17 AM, Bjoern Walk wrote:
Bjoern Walk [2018-09-12, 01:17PM +0200]:
> Michal Privoznik [2018-09-12, 11:32AM
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 10:14 AM +0200, Michal Privoznik
wrote:
> On 09/27/2018 09:57 AM, Marc Hartmayer wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 09:01 AM +0200, Bjoern Walk
>> wrote:
>>> Michal Privoznik [2018-09-19, 11:45AM +0200]:
On 09/19/2018 11:17 AM, Bjoern Walk wrote:
> Bjoern Walk
On 09/27/2018 09:01 AM, Bjoern Walk wrote:
> Michal Privoznik [2018-09-19, 11:45AM +0200]:
>> On 09/19/2018 11:17 AM, Bjoern Walk wrote:
>>> Bjoern Walk [2018-09-12, 01:17PM +0200]:
Michal Privoznik [2018-09-12, 11:32AM
+0200]:
>>
>>>
>>> Still seeing the same timeout. Is this
On 09/27/2018 09:57 AM, Marc Hartmayer wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 09:01 AM +0200, Bjoern Walk
> wrote:
>> Michal Privoznik [2018-09-19, 11:45AM +0200]:
>>> On 09/19/2018 11:17 AM, Bjoern Walk wrote:
Bjoern Walk [2018-09-12, 01:17PM +0200]:
> Michal Privoznik [2018-09-12, 11:32AM
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 09:01 AM +0200, Bjoern Walk wrote:
> Michal Privoznik [2018-09-19, 11:45AM +0200]:
>> On 09/19/2018 11:17 AM, Bjoern Walk wrote:
>> > Bjoern Walk [2018-09-12, 01:17PM +0200]:
>> >> Michal Privoznik [2018-09-12, 11:32AM +0200]:
>>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Still seeing the same tim
Michal Privoznik [2018-09-19, 11:45AM +0200]:
> On 09/19/2018 11:17 AM, Bjoern Walk wrote:
> > Bjoern Walk [2018-09-12, 01:17PM +0200]:
> >> Michal Privoznik [2018-09-12, 11:32AM +0200]:
>
> >>
> >
> > Still seeing the same timeout. Is this expected behaviour?
> >
>
> Nope. I wonder if somet
Michal Privoznik [2018-09-19, 11:45AM +0200]:
> On 09/19/2018 11:17 AM, Bjoern Walk wrote:
> > Bjoern Walk [2018-09-12, 01:17PM +0200]:
> >> Michal Privoznik [2018-09-12, 11:32AM +0200]:
>
> >>
> >
> > Still seeing the same timeout. Is this expected behaviour?
> >
>
> Nope. I wonder if somet
On 09/19/2018 11:17 AM, Bjoern Walk wrote:
> Bjoern Walk [2018-09-12, 01:17PM +0200]:
>> Michal Privoznik [2018-09-12, 11:32AM +0200]:
>>
>
> Still seeing the same timeout. Is this expected behaviour?
>
Nope. I wonder if something has locked the path and forgot to unlock it
(however, virtlock
Bjoern Walk [2018-09-12, 01:17PM +0200]:
> Michal Privoznik [2018-09-12, 11:32AM +0200]:
> > On 09/12/2018 07:19 AM, Bjoern Walk wrote:
> > > Michal Privoznik [2018-09-10, 11:36AM +0200]:
> > >> Technically, this is v4 of:
> > >>
> > >> https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2018-August/msg
On 09/10/2018 11:36 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>
Hopefully, fixed all the nits John found, and pushed.
Thanks John for the review!
Michal
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
Michal Privoznik [2018-09-12, 11:32AM +0200]:
> On 09/12/2018 07:19 AM, Bjoern Walk wrote:
> > Michal Privoznik [2018-09-10, 11:36AM +0200]:
> >> Technically, this is v4 of:
> >>
> >> https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2018-August/msg01627.html
> >>
> >> However, this is implementing dif
On 09/12/2018 07:19 AM, Bjoern Walk wrote:
> Michal Privoznik [2018-09-10, 11:36AM +0200]:
>> Technically, this is v4 of:
>>
>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2018-August/msg01627.html
>>
>> However, this is implementing different approach than any of the
>> previous versions.
>>
>> O
Michal Privoznik [2018-09-10, 11:36AM +0200]:
> Technically, this is v4 of:
>
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2018-August/msg01627.html
>
> However, this is implementing different approach than any of the
> previous versions.
>
> One of the problems with previous version was that
Technically, this is v4 of:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2018-August/msg01627.html
However, this is implementing different approach than any of the
previous versions.
One of the problems with previous version was that it was too
complicated. The main reason for that was that we co
19 matches
Mail list logo
