From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MJCUr-0008Ra-W9
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:21:38 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MJCUn-0008L2-1u
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:21:37 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52333 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MJCUm-0008Kq-Rq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:21:32 -0400
Received: from mail-ew0-f211.google.com ([209.85.219.211]:39431)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <filip.navara@gmail.com>) id 1MJCUm-00067o-G5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:21:32 -0400
Received: by ewy7 with SMTP id 7so498788ewy.34
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20090623182622.GA5804@lst.de>
References: <1245763236-23464-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com>
	<20090623165006.GC27211@lst.de> <4A41095D.7070608@redhat.com>
	<20090623182622.GA5804@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:21:28 +0200
Message-ID: <5b31733c0906231321x526bb0dv8cd639604e0f13ca@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block: Clean up after deleting BHs
From: Filip Navara <filip.navara@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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.gnu.org/pipermail/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: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Christoph Hellwig<hch@lst.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 07:57:01PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> >I think not having the state of the private acb area cleared over a
>> >free/realloc cycle is pretty dangerous. =A0Wouldn't it be better to alw=
ays
>> >clear that space in qemu_aio_get?
>> >
>>
>> Maybe, but that's a bigger change. =A0Let's start with this (in stable-
>> too) and rework aio later.
>
> It's actually smaller - half the size to be exact :)
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

This one solves the issues on Win32 as well. I have no preference for
either patch as long as one of them is applied.

Best regards,
Filip Navara