On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 05:44:14PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 06:26:03PM +0100, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 11:27:14PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > I hope it's worth the effort, it's a lot of complexity added.
> > One of the things whic
Daniel Veillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> I hope it's worth the effort, it's a lot of complexity added.
> One of the things which worries me is that detecting errors will be
> hard, you end up with a locked server that can be far from trivial
> to debug.
> I'm really wondering how we could a
On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 06:26:03PM +0100, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 11:27:14PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > This patch makes the test driver thread safe, adding a global driver lock,
> > and the neccessary locking calls on domain/network/storagepool objects.
> >
> >
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 11:27:14PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> This patch makes the test driver thread safe, adding a global driver lock,
> and the neccessary locking calls on domain/network/storagepool objects.
>
> You'll notice there are many calls to
>
> virDomainObjUnlock
>
> but ver
This patch makes the test driver thread safe, adding a global driver lock,
and the neccessary locking calls on domain/network/storagepool objects.
You'll notice there are many calls to
virDomainObjUnlock
but very few corresponding calls to
virDomainObjLock
This is because the contract of
