From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N2mpC-0003Zq-Mi for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:15:02 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N2mp8-0003ZJ-75 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:15:02 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=51126 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1N2mp8-0003ZG-3f for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:14:58 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:7656) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1N2mp7-0005NH-5g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:14:57 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:44:14 +0530 From: Amit Shah Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] char: emit the OPENED event only when a new char connection is opened Message-ID: <20091027141414.GA8768@amit-x200.redhat.com> References: <1254920477-4645-4-git-send-email-amit.shah@redhat.com> <4AE2D8C6.7070802@web.de> <20091026035312.GB11416@amit-x200.redhat.com> <4AE5525C.2040301@web.de> <20091026092841.GE11416@amit-x200.redhat.com> <4AE6037D.4070100@web.de> <20091027074615.GA28426@amit-x200.redhat.com> <4AE6B1FB.6040609@redhat.com> <20091027092033.GA3759@amit-x200.redhat.com> <4AE6FE02.7000802@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AE6FE02.7000802@us.ibm.com> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Kevin Wolf , Jan Kiszka , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On (Tue) Oct 27 2009 [09:04:50], Anthony Liguori wrote: > Amit Shah wrote: >> On (Tue) Oct 27 2009 [09:40:27], Kevin Wolf wrote: >> >>>> All that said, I'm ok with reverting that patch now till I find some >>>> kind of a solution to this. >>>> >>> Which patch do you want to revert? You're aware that the qcow2 patch is >>> a data corruption fix? >>> >> >> Ah, no. Reverting my patch that causes this problem. I know the qcow2 >> patch only exposes the bh handling issue. I intend to fix that >> appropriately elsewhere :-) >> > > How does Kevin's latest patches that introduces new BHs semantics affect > all of this? I explained that a couple of mails ago in this thread in a reply to Jan. Basically, the order in which the BHs run causes the problem, so it's a race, and Kevin's patch make the BHs run later. Amit