On 2017.03.20 14:58:06 +0800, Jike Song wrote:
> On 03/20/2017 10:38 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > The kvmgt code keeps a pointer to the struct kvm associated with the
> > device, but doesn't actually hold a reference to it. If we do unclean
> > shutdown testing (ie. killing the user process),
On 2017.03.20 14:58:06 +0800, Jike Song wrote:
> On 03/20/2017 10:38 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > The kvmgt code keeps a pointer to the struct kvm associated with the
> > device, but doesn't actually hold a reference to it. If we do unclean
> > shutdown testing (ie. killing the user process),
On 03/20/2017 10:38 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> The kvmgt code keeps a pointer to the struct kvm associated with the
> device, but doesn't actually hold a reference to it. If we do unclean
> shutdown testing (ie. killing the user process), then we can see the
> kvm association to the device
On 03/20/2017 10:38 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> The kvmgt code keeps a pointer to the struct kvm associated with the
> device, but doesn't actually hold a reference to it. If we do unclean
> shutdown testing (ie. killing the user process), then we can see the
> kvm association to the device
The kvmgt code keeps a pointer to the struct kvm associated with the
device, but doesn't actually hold a reference to it. If we do unclean
shutdown testing (ie. killing the user process), then we can see the
kvm association to the device unset, which causes kvmgt to trigger a
device release via a
The kvmgt code keeps a pointer to the struct kvm associated with the
device, but doesn't actually hold a reference to it. If we do unclean
shutdown testing (ie. killing the user process), then we can see the
kvm association to the device unset, which causes kvmgt to trigger a
device release via a
6 matches
Mail list logo