On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:22:45 +0100
Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 03/11/2013 01:16 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Il 11/03/2013 13:04, Cornelia Huck ha scritto:
> >> On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 21:11:13 +0100
> >> Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 25.02.2013, at 12:10, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >>>
> >>
On 03/11/2013 01:16 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 11/03/2013 13:04, Cornelia Huck ha scritto:
On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 21:11:13 +0100
Alexander Graf wrote:
On 25.02.2013, at 12:10, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
On 25/02/13 11:44, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 25/02/2013 09:09, Christian Borntraeger ha sc
Il 11/03/2013 13:04, Cornelia Huck ha scritto:
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 21:11:13 +0100
> Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>>
>> On 25.02.2013, at 12:10, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/02/13 11:44, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 25/02/2013 09:09, Christian Borntraeger ha scritto:
> Hmm, the old se
On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 21:11:13 +0100
Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 25.02.2013, at 12:10, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
> > On 25/02/13 11:44, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> Il 25/02/2013 09:09, Christian Borntraeger ha scritto:
> >>> Hmm, the old sequence was
> >>>
> >>> object_unparent(OBJECT(de
On 25.02.2013, at 12:10, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 25/02/13 11:44, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 25/02/2013 09:09, Christian Borntraeger ha scritto:
>>> Hmm, the old sequence was
>>>
>>> object_unparent(OBJECT(dev));
>>> qdev_free(dev) ---+
>>> |
>>>
On 25/02/13 11:44, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 25/02/2013 09:09, Christian Borntraeger ha scritto:
>> Hmm, the old sequence was
>>
>> object_unparent(OBJECT(dev));
>> qdev_free(dev) ---+
>>|
>>V
>> ...
>> object_unparent(OBJECT(dev)
Il 25/02/2013 09:09, Christian Borntraeger ha scritto:
> Hmm, the old sequence was
>
> object_unparent(OBJECT(dev));
> qdev_free(dev) ---+
>|
>V
> ...
>object_unparent(OBJECT(dev)); now the last reference is gone,
> object is
Am 25.02.2013 08:55, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>
>> Another thing is, that qdev_free looks now different, some days ago
>> it also did an unref. As far as I can see the object_unparent in
>> virtio-ccw was always the wrong thing to do.
>
> object_unparent is "almost" idempotent, i.e. idempotent as
On 25/02/13 08:55, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> Another thing is, that qdev_free looks now different, some days ago
>> it also did an unref. As far as I can see the object_unparent in
>> virtio-ccw was always the wrong thing to do.
>
> object_unparent is "almost" idempotent, i.e. idempotent as long
> Another thing is, that qdev_free looks now different, some days ago
> it also did an unref. As far as I can see the object_unparent in
> virtio-ccw was always the wrong thing to do.
object_unparent is "almost" idempotent, i.e. idempotent as long as it does
not cause the last reference to go aw
On 24/02/13 12:30, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 22.02.2013 20:01, schrieb Jens Freimann:
>> From: Christian Borntraeger
>>
>> This patch fixes a crash when unplugging a virtio-ccw device. We no
>> longer need to do that in virtio-ccw since common code does now
>> proper handling.
>>
>> Signed-off-by
Am 22.02.2013 20:01, schrieb Jens Freimann:
> From: Christian Borntraeger
>
> This patch fixes a crash when unplugging a virtio-ccw device. We no
> longer need to do that in virtio-ccw since common code does now
> proper handling.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger
> Signed-off-by: Jens F
From: Christian Borntraeger
This patch fixes a crash when unplugging a virtio-ccw device. We no
longer need to do that in virtio-ccw since common code does now
proper handling.
Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger
Signed-off-by: Jens Freimann
---
hw/s390x/virtio-ccw.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1
13 matches
Mail list logo
