On 11/16/2010 03:12 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:23:41PM -0600, Ryan Harper wrote:
>> Currently libvirt doesn't confirm whether the guest has responded to the
>> disk removal request. In some cases this can leave the guest with
>> continued access to the device while
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:23:41PM -0600, Ryan Harper wrote:
> Currently libvirt doesn't confirm whether the guest has responded to the
> disk removal request. In some cases this can leave the guest with
> continued access to the device while the mgmt layer believes that it has
> been removed. Wi
On 11/12/2010 11:23 AM, Ryan Harper wrote:
> Currently libvirt doesn't confirm whether the guest has responded to the
> disk removal request. In some cases this can leave the guest with
> continued access to the device while the mgmt layer believes that it has
> been removed. With a recent qemu m
Currently libvirt doesn't confirm whether the guest has responded to the
disk removal request. In some cases this can leave the guest with
continued access to the device while the mgmt layer believes that it has
been removed. With a recent qemu monitor command[1] we can
deterministically revoke a
