Re: [PATCH] libxl: do not fail device removal if backend domain is gone

["Marek Marczykowski-Górecki" <marmarek@invisiblethingslab.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1456 bytes --]

On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 12:10:39PM +0000, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 12:41:58PM +0100, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 11:27:04AM +0000, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > > I'm also wondering, if you jump to 'out' here, you avoid the call to
> > > libxl__xs_transaction_commit and instead end up calling
> > > libxl__xs_transaction_abort, which means the above call to
> > > libxl__xs_path_cleanup will not be committed to xenstore, is this
> > > really desired?
> > >
> > > It seems to me libxl might leak xenstore frontend entries in that
> > > case.
> > 
> > That call is only if aodev->force. In other cases cleanup is done in
> > device_hotplug_done()->libxl__device_destroy(), which have its own transaction.
> 
> Hm, right, but this would still be incorrect in the force case then?
> Or is this simply not needed for the 'force' case?

In that case, the first libxl__xs_path_cleanup will indeed be aborted.
But then it will be cleaned up the same way as in !force case.
Anyway, this is about the case when backend is already gone, so 'force'
doesn't really change anything - it was forcefully removed already, by
shutting down the backend domain (or removing backend using something
else)...

-- 
Best Regards,
Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
Invisible Things Lab
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 157 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel