From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47031) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fgbIP-00065r-Lh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 15:42:34 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fgbIL-0003zM-UG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 15:42:33 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:42420 helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fgbIL-0003yx-Oz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 15:42:29 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w6KJcaIS133904 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 15:42:28 -0400 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com (e31.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.149]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2kbhhh3gnr-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 15:42:28 -0400 Received: from localhost by e31.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 13:42:27 -0600 References: <20180718211256.29774-1-naravamudan@digitalocean.com> <20180720193257.GB23996@breakout> From: Farhan Ali Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 15:42:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180720193257.GB23996@breakout> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20dc1e6f-df6c-9c59-f8ac-ec1f78b9473a@linux.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block/file-posix: add bdrv_attach_aio_context callback for host dev and cdrom List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Nishanth Aravamudan Cc: Eric Blake , Kevin Wolf , John Snow , Max Reitz , Stefan Hajnoczi , Fam Zheng , Paolo Bonzini , qemu-block@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 07/20/2018 03:32 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > On 20.07.2018 [15:11:14 -0400], Farhan Ali wrote: >> I am seeing another issue pop up, in a different test. Even though it's a >> different assertion, it might be related based on the call trace. > > Just to be clear, this does not happen if you revert the original patch > (i.e., the one you bisected to before)? > > I'm digging into the code now. > > -Nish > > I had not seen this issue before. I just ran my regression tests with your fix and saw the failure in one of my test. The patch in itself fixes the original issue I reported. I am going to try and debug some more. Thanks Farhan