From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46418 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OELhZ-0000TV-I9
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 May 2010 08:15:20 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1OELhQ-0000D0-Fs
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 May 2010 08:15:11 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:62672)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1OELhP-0000CB-Cl
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 May 2010 08:15:04 -0400
Message-ID: <4BF284AC.4030404@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 14:14:36 +0200
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Qemu-KVM 0.12.3 and Multipath -> Assertion
References: <4BDF3F94.1080608@dlh.net> <4BDFDC44.9030808@redhat.com>
	<4BE00750.6040804@dlh.net> <4BE01120.30608@redhat.com>
	<4BE02440.6010802@dlh.net> <4BE028BF.1000603@redhat.com>
	<20100504170706.GA21339@lst.de> <4BF27676.5000606@dlh.net>
In-Reply-To: <4BF27676.5000606@dlh.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: Peter Lieven <pl@dlh.net>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Am 18.05.2010 13:13, schrieb Peter Lieven:
> hi,
> 
> will this patch make it into 0.12.4.1 ?
> 
> br,
> peter

Anthony, can you please cherry-pick commit 38d8dfa1 into stable-0.12?

Kevin

> 
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 04:01:35PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>   
>>> Great, I'm going to submit it as a proper patch then.
>>>
>>> Christoph, by now I'm pretty sure it's right, but can you have another
>>> look if this is correct, anyway?
>>>     
>>
>> It looks correct to me - we really shouldn't update the the fields
>> until bdrv_aio_cancel has returned.  In fact we cannot cancel a request
>> more often than we can, so there's a fairly high chance it will
>> complete.
>>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>