Kevin Wolf kw...@redhat.com writes:
Am 21.10.2010 23:37, schrieb Ryan Harper:
* Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com [2010-10-21 08:29]:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 09:32:29AM -0500, Ryan Harper wrote:
Block hot unplug is racy since the guest is required to acknowlege the ACPI
unplug event;
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 04:37:46PM -0500, Ryan Harper wrote:
* Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com [2010-10-21 08:29]:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 09:32:29AM -0500, Ryan Harper wrote:
Block hot unplug is racy since the guest is required to acknowlege the
ACPI
unplug event; this may not
Am 21.10.2010 23:37, schrieb Ryan Harper:
* Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com [2010-10-21 08:29]:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 09:32:29AM -0500, Ryan Harper wrote:
Block hot unplug is racy since the guest is required to acknowlege the ACPI
unplug event; this may not happen synchronously with
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 09:32:29AM -0500, Ryan Harper wrote:
Block hot unplug is racy since the guest is required to acknowlege the ACPI
unplug event; this may not happen synchronously with the device removal
command
This series aims to close a gap where by mgmt applications that assume the
* Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com [2010-10-21 08:29]:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 09:32:29AM -0500, Ryan Harper wrote:
Block hot unplug is racy since the guest is required to acknowlege the ACPI
unplug event; this may not happen synchronously with the device removal
command
This
Block hot unplug is racy since the guest is required to acknowlege the ACPI
unplug event; this may not happen synchronously with the device removal command
This series aims to close a gap where by mgmt applications that assume the
block resource has been removed without confirming that the guest
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Ryan Harper ry...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Block hot unplug is racy since the guest is required to acknowlege the ACPI
unplug event; this may not happen synchronously with the device removal
command
This series aims to close a gap where by mgmt applications that
