On 26.11.18 13:33, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 26.11.2018 um 13:05 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
>> On 26.11.18 12:28, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> bdrv_child_cb_inactivate() asserts that parents are already inactive
>>> when children get inactivated. This precondition is necessary because
>>> parents could still
On 26.11.18 13:05, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 26.11.18 12:28, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> bdrv_child_cb_inactivate() asserts that parents are already inactive
>> when children get inactivated. This precondition is necessary because
>> parents could still issue requests in their inactivation code.
>>
>> When bl
Am 26.11.2018 um 13:05 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
> On 26.11.18 12:28, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > bdrv_child_cb_inactivate() asserts that parents are already inactive
> > when children get inactivated. This precondition is necessary because
> > parents could still issue requests in their inactivation co
On 26.11.18 12:28, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> bdrv_child_cb_inactivate() asserts that parents are already inactive
> when children get inactivated. This precondition is necessary because
> parents could still issue requests in their inactivation code.
>
> When block nodes are created individually with -b
bdrv_child_cb_inactivate() asserts that parents are already inactive
when children get inactivated. This precondition is necessary because
parents could still issue requests in their inactivation code.
When block nodes are created individually with -blockdev, all of them
are monitor owned and will
