From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56711) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1amfIp-00088Q-0d for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2016 06:30:43 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1amfIk-0001U9-1b for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2016 06:30:42 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59086) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1amfIj-0001Tz-SK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2016 06:30:37 -0400 Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 13:30:33 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20160403132827-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> References: <1459516794-23629-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1459516794-23629-10-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <56FE823E.9000201@de.ibm.com> <20160401163044.1c91fcd5.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160401163044.1c91fcd5.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 9/9] virtio: remove starting/stopping checks List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Cornelia Huck Cc: famz@redhat.com, Christian Borntraeger , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, tubo@linux.vnet.ibm.com, stefanha@redhat.com, Paolo Bonzini On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 04:30:44PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 16:14:22 +0200 > Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > On 04/01/2016 03:19 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > Reentrancy cannot happen while the BQL is being held. > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck > > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini > > > > Reverting this patch makes the segfaults go away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > hw/block/dataplane/virtio-blk.c | 12 ++---------- > > > hw/scsi/virtio-scsi-dataplane.c | 9 +-------- > > > include/hw/virtio/virtio-scsi.h | 2 -- > > > 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > > :( > > On the one hand, I'm wondering what we're missing here. > > On the other hand, let's just skip the cleanup patches and get the bug > fixed? For 2.6, absolutely. I would also drop 8/9. For debugging (that we can keep up for now), instead of dropping the checks, let's replace them with asserts. -- MST