From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:54924)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <akong@redhat.com>) id 1QygYV-0002Mu-R1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 04:53:56 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <akong@redhat.com>) id 1QygYU-00043R-WF
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 04:53:55 -0400
Received: from mx4-phx2.redhat.com ([209.132.183.25]:54554)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <akong@redhat.com>) id 1QygYU-00043D-NZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 04:53:54 -0400
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 04:53:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Amos Kong <akong@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <981402821.450098.1314780832918.JavaMail.root@zmail05.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110831074852.GA29379@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] vhost: Fix typo in comment
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/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: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

----- Original Message -----
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 03:43:48PM +0800, Amos Kong wrote:
> > vhost_dev_stop() and vhost_dev_disable_notifiers() are called in
> > vhost_net_stop(), correct this comment.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Amos Kong <akong@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  hw/vhost.c | 2 +-
> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/vhost.c b/hw/vhost.c
> > index 0870cb7..640aff0 100644
> > --- a/hw/vhost.c
> > +++ b/hw/vhost.c
> > @@ -797,7 +797,7 @@ fail:
> >      return r;
> >  }
> >
> > -/* Host notifiers must be enabled at this point. */
> > +/* Host notifiers must be disabled at this point. */
> >  void vhost_dev_stop(struct vhost_dev *hdev, VirtIODevice *vdev)
> >  {
> >      int i, r;
> 
> Well it looks like we first call vhost_dev_stop and
> only afterwards vhost_dev_disable_notifiers.
> So when vhost_dev_stop is called notifiers are enabled,
> and they really must be otherwise stuff will fail.
> Isn't this what the original comment says?
> If that's not clear, what would be a better wording?

It's my fault to misunderstand the meaning, we can ignore this patch.

Thanks,
Amos